Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00328 JSW

NOTICE OF TENTATIVE

RULING AND QUESTIONS

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING TENTATIVE RULING AND QUESTIONS FOR THE

HEARING SCHEDULED ON JUNE 24, 2005: 

The Court tentatively DENIES Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The

Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does not wish to

hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to rely on

authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. See N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) The Supreme Court has recognized that a state has standing to sue when it alleges an

interest in preserving its sovereignty and its sovereign interests have been interfered with

or diminished. See Bowen v. Public Agencies Opposed to Social Sec. Entrapment, 477

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 23 Filed 06/22/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

U.S. 41, 51 n. 17 (1986) (affirming district court’s finding that state had standing). A

state’s sovereign interest includes the power to create and enforce a legal code. Alfred L.

Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico, ex rel. Barez, 458 U.S. 592, 601 (1982). Plaintiffs

allege that California Health and Safety Code §§ 1317 and 123420 create a statutory

scheme that secure’s a woman’s right to a medically necessary abortion by requiring

health care facilities that provide emergency services to perform medically necessary

emergency abortions. According to Plaintiffs, the Weldon Amendment conflicts with

this statutory scheme in that California could no longer require health care facilities to

perform medically necessary emergency abortions. If true, California is currently

prohibited by the Weldon Amendment from enforcing its own laws, a recognized

sovereign interest. See Oregon v. Ashcroft, 192 F.Supp.2d 1077, 1087 (D. Or. 2002)

(finding Oregon had standing where it alleged an injury to its sovereign interest in the

continued enforceability of its own statutes); see also State of Alaska v. U.S. Department

of Transportation, 868 F.2d 441, 443 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (same). Do Defendants contend

that such an injury is not sufficient to allege standing? If so, on what basis?

(2) Do the parties have anything further to add? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 22, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 23 Filed 06/22/05 Page 2 of 2