# Whole Woman's Health v. Charles Smith

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · July 15, 2018 · 896 F.3d 362

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9886833

## Case

- **Full name:** WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH; Brookside Women's Medical Center, P.A., Doing Business as Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center; Lendol L. Davis, M.D.; Alamo City Surgery Center, P.L.L.C., Doing Business as Alamo Women's Reproductive Services; Whole Woman's Health Alliance; Dr. Bhavik Khumar, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Charles SMITH, Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, in His Official Capacity, Defendant-Appellee, v. Texas Catholic Conference, Movant-Appellant.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 15, 2018
- **Citations:** 896 F.3d 362
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Judge
- **Judges:** James, Jones, Costa
- **Nature of suit:** Civil Rights
- **Cited by:** 39 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9886833

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding “[b]oth free exercise and establishment clause problems seem inherent in the court’s discovery order” after a trial court entered a discovery order requiring a religious organization’s production of internal communications
- reversing “disturbing” and “ill-informed” district court order that “looks like an act of intimidation” issued “in unnecessary haste”

## Opinion text

JAMES C. HO, Circuit Judge, concurring:
It is hard to imagine a better example of how far we have strayed from the text and original understanding of the Constitution than this case.
The First Amendment expressly guarantees the free exercise of religion-including the right of the Bishops to express their profound objection to the moral tragedy of abortion, by offering free burial services for fetal remains. By contrast, nothing in the text or original understanding of the Constitution prevents a state from requiring the proper burial of fetal remains.
But from the proceedings below, you would think the opposite were true.
Those proceedings are chronicled in Judge Jones's comprehensive opinion for the Court. And they are troubling. They leave this Court to wonder why the district court saw the need to impose a 24-hour mandate on the Bishops on a Sunday (Father's Day, no less), if not in an effort to either evade appellate review-or tax the Bishops and their counsel for seeking review. They leave this Court to wonder if this discovery is sought, inter alia , to retaliate against people of faith for not only believing in the sanctity of life-but also for wanting to do something about it. See, e.g. , Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1719 , --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2018).
I join Judge Jones's excellent opinion, with regret that the relief we grant today is even necessary. See Stormans, Inc. v. Wiesman , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 2433 , 195 L.Ed.2d 870 (2016) (Alito, J., joined by Roberts, C.J., and Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) ("This case is an ominous sign. ... If this is a sign of how religious liberty claims will be treated in the years ahead, those who value religious freedom have cause for great concern.").

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9886833. Public record. Not legal advice.