Case Name: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GULF COAST, INCORPORATED; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe #3, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 876 F.3d 699
Docket Number: No. 15-30987
Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GULF COAST, INCORPORATED; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe #3, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant
Judges: Befqre WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 876
Pages: 699–702

Head Matter:
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF GULF COAST, INCORPORATED; Jane Doe #1; Jane Doe #2; Jane Doe #3, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. Rebekah GEE, Secretary, Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, Defendant-Appellant
No. 15-30987
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
November 28, 2017
Ann. Cohen, Esq., Planned Parenthood Federation of America,. New York, NY, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Jimmy Roy Faircloth, Jr.,. Attorney, Faircloth, Melton & Sobel, L.L.C., Alexandria, LA, Brook Landry Villa, Faircloth, Melton & Sobel, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellants.
Alisa Beth Klein, Esq., ';Mark Bernard Stern, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Section, Washington, DC, Mary Patricia- Jones, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, for Amicus Curiae United States of America.'
Martha Jane Perkins, National Health Law Program, Carrboro, NC, Michael Cantrell, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR, for Amicus Curiaes.,
Befqre WIENER, PRADO, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
. Whether § 1396a(a)(23) even confers any private right of action under the framework in Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273, 122 S.Ct. 2268, 153 L.Ed.2d 309 (2002), makes the panel majority opinion further problematic. See Does v. Gillespie, 867 F.3d 1034, 1046 (8th Cir. 2017) (holding that Congress did not unambiguously confer a right in § 1396a(a)(23) that could be enforced by an individual patient under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Fifteen amici states filed a brief urging the en banc court to consider the issue of whether there was any private right of action in the statute. As Justice Scalia, writing for the Court, deftly put it, “Congress ,,, does not .., hide elephants in mouseholes," Whitman v. Am. Trucking, Ass'n, 531 U.S. 457, 468, 121 S.Ct. 903, 149 L.Ed.2d 1 (2001).

Opinion:
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
Treating the Petition for Rehearing En Banc as a Petition for Panel Rehearing, the Petition for Panel Rehearing is DENIED. The court havirig been polled at the request of one of the members of the court and a majority of the judges who are in regular active service and not disqualified not having voted in favor (Fed; R. App. P. and 5th Cir, R. 35), the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
In the poll, 7 judges vote in favor of rehearing en banc, and 7 vote against. Voting in favor are Judges Jolly, Jones, Smith, Clement, Owen, Elrod, and South-wick, Yoting against are Chief Judge Stewart, and Judges Dennis, Prado, Haynes, Graves, Higginson, and Costa.
Jacques L. Wiener, Jr. United States Circuit Judge