Opinion ID: 3036015
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Other Federal Courts’ Treatment of the Act

Text: In addition to the district court, three other federal courts have reviewed the Act and each has held it unconstitutional. The Eighth Circuit declared the Act unconstitutional because it failed to contain an exception for women’s health as required under Stenberg. Carhart v. Gonzales, 413 F.3d 791, 803-04 (8th Cir. 2005).10 The district court in that case also found the Act unconstitutional because of the lack of a health exception, as well as because it imposed an undue burden on 10 Because it found the Act unconstitutional on the ground that it lacked a health exception, the Eighth Circuit declined to reach the statute’s other potential constitutional infirmities. Carhart, 413 F.3d at 803-04. 1314 PLANNED PARENTHOOD v. GONZALES a woman’s ability to choose a previability, post-first trimester abortion. Carhart v. Ashcroft, 331 F. Supp. 2d 805, 809 (D. Neb. 2004).11 Finally, the District Court for the Southern District of New York found the Act unconstitutional because it did not contain a health exception. Nat’l Abortion Fed’n. (“NAF”) v. Ashcroft, 330 F. Supp. 2d 436, 492-493 (S.D.N.Y. 2004).12 None of these courts considered separately the question of remedy because under Stenberg, 530 U.S. at 946, enjoining enforcement of the Act appeared to be mandatory at the time the decisions were issued. Ayotte, slip op. at 9.