NYCLU Sues CUNY For Withholding Investment Records From Pro-Palestine Student Organizers
Civil Liberties Union
The RRP and RFP argued that the Ban was unconstitutional because:
The federal ban also represents an unprecedented federal intrusion into New York's pro-choice policies and threatens the health of women in the state. New York has repeatedly rejected attempts to ban abortion procedures.
Importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court has already concluded that any ban on abortion procedures must include a health exception. In 2000, the Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska state law that was nearly identical to the Federal Abortion Ban in Stenberg v. Carhart. Congress attempted to get around this ruling, when passing the Federal Abortion Ban, by stating that the procedures prohibited by the Ban are never medically necessary—ignoring significant medical opinion to the contrary.
Accordingly on August 26, 2004, Judge Casey struck down the Federal Abortion Ban because it failed to provide any exception that allowed the procedure when necessary to protect a woman's health. Citing the requirements established by the Stenberg ruling, Judge Casey found the Federal Abortion Ban unconstitutional. In addition to Judge Casey's decision, federal district judges in San Francisco and Nebraska struck down the ban in parallel cases brought by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and by the Center for Reproductive Rights, respectively. In July 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Nebraska district court's decision. Oral arguments for the appeal of the California case, which will be heard by the Ninth Circuit, are scheduled for October 20, 2005.
On September 2004, the Department of Justice appealed Judge Casey's decision. In response to this appeal, the NYCLU and the ACLU filed a brief in March 2005 arguing:
Oral arguments took place on October 6, 2005, in front of a three-judge panel.