Planned Parenthood of Arizona v. William Humble

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the Arizona law restricting the provision of medication that induces abortion is likely unconstitutional
• indicating “the undue burden test is context-specific, and ... both the severity of a burden and the strength of the state’s justification can vary depending on the circumstances”
• “We conclude that Abbott . . . [is] inconsistent with the undue burden test as articulated and applied in [the relevant Supreme Court case law.]”
• plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish, among other things, that he is likely to succeed on the merits
• “[W]e compare the extent of the burden a law imposes on a woman’s right to abortion with the strength of the state’s justification of the law. The more substantial the burden, the stronger the state’s justification for the law must be to satisfy the undue burden test.”
• “[W]e compare the extent of the burden a law imposes on a woman’s right to abortion with the strength of the state’s justification of the law. The more substantial the burden, the stronger the state’s justification for the law must be to satisfy the undue burden test.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).