USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 1 of 32 No. 21-1369 ════════════════════════════════════════ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ────────────────────────────── PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTH ATLANTIC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ALAN WILSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General of South Carolina, et al., Defendants-Appellants, and HENRY MCMASTER, in his official capacity as Governor of the State of South Carolina, et al., Intervenors-Appellants, and ANNE G. COOK, et al., Defendants. ────────────────────────────── On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Case No. 21-cv-00508 ════════════════════════════════════════ BRIEF OF 20 STATES AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF SOUTH CAROLINA APPELLANTS ════════════════════════════════════════ STATE OF ALABAMA STEVE MARSHALL OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General 501 Washington Avenue Edmund G. LaCour Jr. Montgomery, AL 36130 Solicitor General (334) 242-7300 Counsel of Record [email protected] A. Barrett Bowdre Deputy Solicitor General Counsel for Amici Curiae [Additional counsel listed on signature page] USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 2 of 32 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT As governmental parties, amici are not required to file a certificate of inter- ested persons. Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(a). i USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 3 of 32 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ............................................................................ 1 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 3 I. As Laws From Other States Demonstrate, The Act’s Unchallenged Provisions Are “Capable Of Being Executed In Accordance With The Legislative Intent, Independent Of The Rejected Portion.” ................................................................................. 5 II. The District Court’s Severability Analysis Violates Principles Of Separation Of Powers, Federalism, And Article III ............................ 13 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 19 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ....................................................................... 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................ 22 ii USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 4 of 32 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Ass’n of Am. Railroads v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 896 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ..............................................................................13 Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of N. New England, 546 U.S. 320 (2006) ................................................................................... 4, 13, 14 Barr v. Am. Ass’n of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020) ................................................................................... 13, 14 Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (1997) ..............................................................................................16 Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491 (1985) ................................................................................................ 4 Digital Recognition Network, Inc. v. Hutchinson, 803 F.3d 952 (8th Cir. 2015) .................................................................................16 Edwards v. Beck, 8 F. Supp. 3d 1091 (E.D. Ark. 2014), aff’d, 786 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................10 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Beshear, 920 F.3d 421 (6th Cir. 2019) .............................................................................9, 10 EMW Women’s Surgical Ctr., P.S.C. v. Meier, 140 S. Ct. 655 (2019) .............................................................................................. 9 Etiwan Fertilizer Co. v. S.C. Tax Comm’n, 60 S.E.2d 682 (S.C. 1950) ...................................................................................... 6 Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) ..............................................................................................15 Falls Church Med. Ctr., LLC v. Oliver, 412 F. Supp. 3d 668 (E.D. Va. 2019) ...................................................................10 iii USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 5 of 32 Free Enter. Fund v. Pub. Co. Acct. Oversight Bd., 561 U.S. 477 (2010) ..............................................................................................14 Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) ..............................................................................................13 Hodges v. Rainey, 533 S.E.2d 578 (S.C. 2000) .................................................................................... 5 Hope Clinic v. Ryan, 249 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................16 In re DNA Ex Post Facto Issues, 561 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 3, 5, 7, 13 In re Gee, 941 F.3d 153 (5th Cir. 2019) .................................................................................16 Jacobson v. Fla. Sec’y of State, 974 F.3d 1236 (11th Cir. 2020).............................................................................18 Joytime Distribs. & Amusement Co. v. South Carolina, 528 S.E.2d 647 (S.C. 1999) ..................................................................... 3, 5, 7, 13 Kowalski v. Tesmer, 543 U.S. 125 (2004) ................................................................................................ 2 Leavitt v. Jane L., 518 U.S. 137 (1996) ..................................................................................... 3, 6, 18 Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) ..............................................................................................14 Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) ..............................................................................................16 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803)..............................................................................................14 Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923) ..............................................................................................15 iv USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 6 of 32 Media Gen. Commc’ns, Inc. v. S.C. Dep’t of Revenue, 694 S.E.2d 525 (S.C. 2010) ................................................................................5, 6 Nat’l Inst. of Family & Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 138 S. Ct. 2361 (2018) ..........................................................................................10 Okpalobi v. Foster, 244 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2001) .................................................................................17 Planned Parenthood of Se. Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) ..................................................................................... 2, 9, 13 Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U.S. 641 (1984) ..............................................................................................14 Reprod. Health Servs. v. Marshall, 268 F. Supp. 3d 1261 (M.D. Ala. 2017) ...............................................................10 Seila Law LLC v. CFPB, 140 S. Ct. 2183 (2020) ..........................................................................................15 Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974) ..............................................................................................15 Stuart v. Camnitz, 774 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2014) .................................................................................10 Tex. Med. Providers Performing Abortion Servs. v. Lakey, 667 F.3d 570 (5th Cir. 2012) .................................................................................10 United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021) ..........................................................................................15 STATUTES Ala. Code § 26-23A-4 ....................................................................................... 11, 12 Ala. Code § 26-23A-10 ............................................................................................12 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 36-2153 .......................................................................................12 v USCA4 Appeal: 21-1369 Doc: 34-1 Filed: 07/13/2021 Pg: 7 of 32 Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 36-2156 ...............................................................................11 Ark. Code § 20-16-1703 ..........................................................................................12 Ark. Code § 20-16-602 (as amended by 2021 Arkansas Laws Act 498 (S.B. 85) .....................................11 Ark. Code § 20-16-1710 ..........................................................................................12 Fla. Stat. § 390.0111 ................................................................................................11 Ga. Code § 31-9A-3 .................................................................................................12