Global Freedom of Expression

Español

Stuart v. Camnitz

Closed Expands Expression

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Speech
  • Date of Decision
    December 22, 2014
  • Outcome
    Law or Action Upheld, Law or Action Overturned or Deemed Unconstitutional
  • Case Number
    774 F.3d 238
  • Region & Country
    United States, North America
  • Judicial Body
    Appellate Court
  • Type of Law
    Civil Law
  • Themes
    Political Expression
  • Tags
    Coerced or Compelled Speech

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

In July 2011 the North Carolina General Assembly passed a controversial abortion law. This legislation was challenged on the basis that it violated the First Amendment. Those bringing the suit were the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Planned Parenthood Federation of America on behalf of North Carolina physicians and medical practices that provided abortion services, as well as their patients. On January 17, 2014 the federal trial court permanently blocked the ultrasound requirements and the State of North Carolina appealed. On December 22, 2014 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the law was unconstitutional.


Facts

In July 2011, the North Carolina General Assembly passed the Woman’s Right to Know Act. This law prohibited a woman from obtaining an abortion unless her physician (during the course of an ultrasound procedure and while the woman was on an examination table) placed the ultrasound images in her view. The physician would then be required to read a state-mandated script about the images even if the woman did not want to see the images or hear the description. In addition, the physician would be required to force the woman to wait at least four hours before having the abortion.

The CRR, the ACLU, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America challenged the law on behalf of North Carolina physicians and medical practices that provide abortion services, as well as their patients. The plaintiffs argued that this law violated the First Amendment rights of physicians by forcing them to deliver politically-motivated communications to a patient even over the patient’s objection. The CCR also argued that the law was disrespectful to women and also served no medical purpose. The defendants were: Paul S. Camnitz, MD (in his official capacity as President of the North Carolina Medical Board) as well as his employees, agents, and successors.


Decision Overview

On January 17, 2014 the federal trial court agreed with the plaintiffs and held that the ultrasound requirements were inappropriate. The court reasoned that the display of real-time view requirement violated the physicians’ First Amendment right to free speech. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction against the legislation. After this holding the State of North Carolina appealed the case and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard arguments regarding the matter on October 29, 2014.

On December 22, 2014 the Fourth Circuit struck down the law and deemed it unconstitutional. The court stated that professional rights and medical norms should not be dismissed in abortion cases. Additionally, it explained that the state may promote childbirth over abortion through various means but it may not coerce doctors into voicing that message on behalf of the state in the particular manner and setting that was attempted by the Woman’s Right to Know legislation. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court’s holding that this compelled speech provision violates the First Amendment.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Expands Expression

The decision expands expression since it strikes down a law that infringes on citizens’ First Amendment rights.

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • U.S., Stuart v. Loomis, 992 F. Supp. 2d 585, 611 (M.D.N.C. 2014)
  • U.S., S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A & G Coal Corp., 758 F.3d 560, 562 (4th Cir. 2014)
  • U.S., Stuart v. Huff, 706 F.3d 345 (4th Cir. 2013)
  • U.S., Turner Broadcasting Sys. Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)
  • U.S., Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
  • U.S., Keller v. State Bar, 496 U.S. 1 (1990)
  • U.S., Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781 (1988)
  • U.S., Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
  • U.S., Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974)
  • U.S., Doe No. 1 v. Reed, 561 U.S. 186 (2010)
  • U.S., Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
  • U.S., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977)
  • U.S., Centro Tepeyac v. Montgomery County, 722 F.3d 184 (4th Cir. 2013)
  • U.S., Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,131 S.Ct. 2653 (2011)
  • U.S., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U.S. 114 (1889)
  • U.S., King v. Governor of New Jersey, 767 F.3d 216 (3rd Cir. 2014)
  • U.S., Barsky v. Board of Regents of University, 347 U.S. 442 (1954)
  • U.S., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972)
  • U.S., Lowe v. S.E.C., 472 U.S. 181 (1985)
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 884 (1992)
  • U.S., Florida Bar v. Went For It Inc., 515 U.S. 618 (1995)
  • U.S., Pickup v. Brown, 740 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2013)
  • U.S., Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589 (1977)
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 686 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012)
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724 (8th Cir. 2008)
  • U.S., Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007)
  • U.S., Planned Parenthood Fed’n v. Ashcroft, 320 F. Supp. 2d 957 (N.D. Cal. 2004)
  • U.S., Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000)
  • U.S., Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976)
  • U.S., Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, (1992)
  • U.S., Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)
  • U.S., Greenville Women’s Clinic v. Bryant, 222 F.3d 157 (4th Cir. 2000)
  • U.S., Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997)
  • U.S., Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)
  • U.S., Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

The decision was cited in:

Official Case Documents

Official Case Documents:


Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:


Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback