1 VANESSA L. WILLIAMS, ESQ. LAW OFFICE OF VANESSA L. WILLIAMS, P.C. 2 414 WEST SOLEDAD AVENUE GCIC BLDG., SUITE 500 HAGÅTÑA, GUAM 96910 3 TELEPHONE: (671) 477-1389 EMAIL: [email protected] 4 ALEXA KOLBI-MOLINAS* 5 MEAGAN BURROWS* RACHEL REEVES* MERICAN IVIL IBERTIES NION OUNDATION 6 A C L U F 125 BROAD STREET, 18TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NY 10004 7 TEL: (212) 549-2633 EMAIL: [email protected] 8 * Application for admission pro hac vice pending 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF GUAM 11 SHANDHINI RAIDOO, et al., ) ) CIVIL CASE NO. 21-00009 12 ) Plaintiffs, ) ) 13 vs. ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ) PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A 14 ) LEEVIN TAITANO CAMACHO, et al., ) PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 ) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 13 Filed 02/05/21 Page 1 of 41 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii 3 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 4 I. STATUTORY BACKGROUND........................................................................................ 2 5 II. FACTS ................................................................................................................................ 4 6 A. Background on Abortion Safety and Access ................................................................ 4 7 B. Medication Abortion and Telemedicine ....................................................................... 7 8 C. Abortion Access in Guam ........................................................................................... 12 9 D. Telemedicine Abortion in Guam ................................................................................ 14 10 ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................ 16 11 I. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on Their Claim That the Clinic Requirement Is 12 Unconstitutionally Vague as Applied to Medication Abortion. ....................................... 16 13 II. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Succeed on Their Claim That the Clinic Requirement and 14 State-Mandated Information Law Violate Plaintiffs’ Patients’ Rights to Substantive 15 Due Process. ...................................................................................................................... 21 16 A. Clinic Requirement ..................................................................................................... 25 17 B. State-Mandated Information Law ............................................................................... 27 18 III. Plaintiffs and Their Patients Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent Injunctive Relief. ..... 32 19 IV. The Balance of Equities Strongly Favors Plaintiffs and the Public Interest Is Served 20 by An Injunction. .............................................................................................................. 33 21 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 34 22 23 24 Raidoo v. Camacho Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction i Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 13 Filed 02/05/21 Page 2 of 41 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases 3 All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 4 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 16 5 Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 6 757 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 32, 33 7 Cardenas v. United States, 8 826 F.3d 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) ................................................................................................... 23 9 Doe v. Bolton, 10 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ................................................................................................................... 22 11 Elrod v. Burns, 12 427 U.S. 347 (1976) ................................................................................................................... 32 13 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 14 978 F.3d 418 (6th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 23 15 Farris v. Seabrook, 16 677 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................... 16 17 Forbes v. Napolitano, 18 236 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................. 17, 20 19 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 20 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ................................................................................................................... 17 21 Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 22 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................... 21 23 Harris v. Bd. of Supervisors, 24 366 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 33 Raidoo v. Camacho Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction ii Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 13 Filed 02/05/21 Page 3 of 41 1 Hopkins v. Jegley, 2 968 F.3d 912 (8th Cir. 2020) ..................................................................................................... 23 3 Isaacson v. Horne, 4 716 F.3d 1213 (9th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................. 21, 25 5 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier, 6 760 F.3d 448 (5th Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................... 26 7 Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Dobbs, 8 945 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................................................... 22 9 June Medical Servs., LLC v. Russo, 10 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020) ............................................................................................. 22, 23, 25, 26 11 Kallstrom v. City of Columbus, 12 136 F.3d 1055 (6th Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................... 33 13 Karlin v. Foust, 14 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999) ..................................................................................................... 27 15 Little Rock Fam. Plan. Servs. v. Rutledge, 16 398 F. Supp. 3d 330 (E.D. Ark. 2019) ....................................................................................... 22 17 McCormack v. Herzog, 18 788 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................. 17, 20 19 Melendres v. Arpaio, 20 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................... 32, 34 21 Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 22 305 U.S. 337 (1938) ................................................................................................................... 25 23 Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors v. City of Jacksonville, 24 896 F.2d 1283 (11th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 32 Raidoo v. Camacho Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction iii Case 1:21-cv-00009 Document 13 Filed 02/05/21 Page 4 of 41 1 Nelson v. Nat’l Aeronautics & Space Admin., 2 530 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................... 32 3 Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Humble, 4 753 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. passim 5 Planned Parenthood Minn., N.D., S.D. v. Daugaard, 6 799 F. Supp. 2d 1048 (D.S.D. 2011) ......................................................................................... 29 7 Planned Parenthood of Cent. & N. Ariz. v. Arizona, 8 718 F.2d 938 (9th Cir.1983) ...................................................................................................... 19 9 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 10 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ............................................................................................................ passim 11 Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Schimel, 12 806 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2015) ..................................................................................................... 25 13 Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley, 14 951 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (M.D. Ala. 2013) .................................................................................... 33 15 Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange, 16 9 F. Supp. 3d 1272 (M.D. Ala. 2014) ........................................................................................ 29 17 Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Strange, 18 33 F. Supp. 3d 1330 (M.D. Ala. 2014)………………………………………………………... 29 19 Rodriguez v. Robbins, 20 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 33 21 Roe v. Wade, 22 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ................................................................................................................... 21 23 Steffel v. Thompson, 24 415 U.S. 452 (1974) ..................................................................................................................