recognizing the necessity to modify or dissolve injunctions if “the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent”
How later courts described this case
- recognizing the necessity to modify or dissolve injunctions if “the statutory or decisional law has changed to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent”
- “Under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may dissolve an injunction if it ‘is based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated’ or if applying the injunction prospectively ‘is no longer equitable.’”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI
Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio )
Region, et al., )
) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00118
Plaintiffs, )
) Judge Michael R. Barrett
vs. )
)
David Yost, et al., each in their official )
capacity as well as their employees, )
agents, and successors, )
)
Defendants.
ORDER DISSOLVING APRIL 18, 2019 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 49)
This matter is before the Court on the emergency motion, filed by Ohio Attorney
General Dave Yost pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(4), to dissolve the Preliminary
Injunction (Doc. 49) entered on April 18, 2019. (Doc. 83). Defendant Yost also asks that
this case be dismissed. (Id. PAGEID 1821).
Yost argues that the cases on which the Court relied to enter injunctive relief were
overruled today in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., No. 19-1392, --- S.Ct. ---,
2022 WL 2276808 (June 24, 2022) and, applying the standard of review decided by
Dobbs, a rational basis supports the statute criminalizing “dismemberment abortions”
(codified at Ohio Rev. Code § 2919.15(B)).
Plaintiffs oppose the motion (Doc. 84), explaining that Rule 65(b)(4) applies only
when temporary restraining orders are issued without notice. Further, Plaintiffs maintain
that the Court should delay ruling until the expiration of the 25-day period for a petition for
rehearing to be filed under Sup. Ct. R. 45.1.3. Finally, Plaintiffs contend that the equities
do not favor an expedited ruling given that “[p]ractitioners, legal scholars, and
reproductive care practitioners are still reading the [Dobbs] opinion and debating its
implications.” (Id. PAGEID 1825).
Defendant Yost replies (Doc. 85) that none of these arguments are meritorious and
the Court agrees. Injunctions may be dissolved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5). See
Associated Builders & Contractors v. Michigan Dep't of Lab. & Econ. Growth, 543 F.3d
275, 278 (6th Cir. 2008) (“Under Rule 60(b)(5) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a
court may dissolve an injunction if it ‘is based on an earlier judgment that has been
reversed or vacated’ or if applying the injunction prospectively ‘is no longer equitable.’”).
And while the mandate in Dobbs will not issue for 25 days, in the Court’s view the
opinion’s precedential value for other litigants has attached. Moreover, the equities
clearly favor immediate action. Dobbs expressly overruled Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113
(1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the
two seminal cases upon which the Court relied to find a likelihood of success on the
merits, which, in turn, supported injunctive relief. As the Sixth Circuit has explained, “[t]he
principle that an equitable remedy should be enforced only so long as the equities require
is one that is deeply rooted in the traditions of common law.” In re Detroit Auto Dealers
Ass'n, Inc., 84 F.3d 787, 789 (6th Cir. 1996). “A court has continuing jurisdiction to
terminate or modify an injunction.” Id.
Injunctions are one of the law's most powerful weapons. Ongoing
injunctions should be dissolved when they no longer meet the
requirements of equity. The law changes and clarifies itself over
time. Neither the doctrines of res judicata or waiver nor a proper
respect for previously entered judgments requires that old injunctions
remain in effect when the old law on which they were based has
changed.
Id. (quoting Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1166–67 (6th Cir.1994)). See generally
Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 388 (1992) (recognizing the
necessity to modify or dissolve injunctions if “the statutory or decisional law has changed
to make legal what the decree was designed to prevent”).
Defendant Yost’s emergency motion (Doc. 83) is GRANTED in PART, such that
the Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 49) entered on April 18, 2019 is hereby DISSOLVED.
However, the Court declines to dismiss this case at this juncture. Rather, a status
conference will be set by separate notice to discuss further proceedings.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ Michael R. Barrett
Michael R. Barrett, Judge
United States District Court