Excerpt of the Dissenting Opinion

I am constrained to dissent in light of what I can only conclude is binding precedent from the Florida Supreme Court and this Court.

In the specific context of abortion regulation, the Florida Supreme Court has held that even “minimal” loss of the constitutional right of privacy is per-se irreparable injury. Gainesville Woman Care, LLC v. State, 210 So. 3d 1243, 1263 (Fla. 2017) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“[L]oss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”)). We applied this Florida Supreme Court holding in Green v. Alachua County, 323 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021), holding that the typical four-part test for temporary injunctive relief “collapses” into the single question of whether the challenged law implicates the right of privacy. Id. at 250 (“We read the supreme court’s jurisprudence on the right to privacy to require that we make a single, threshold, de novo inquiry when considering a temporary injunction appeal— Does the challenged law implicate an individual’s right of privacy?”). We are therefore required to presume irreparable harm, and because we held in Green that is the sole question for injunctive relief in the right-to-privacy context, we must grant Appellees’ motion to vacate.

Precedent also bars us from relying on Appellants’ supposed lack of standing to assert the personal right of privacy that individual patients could assert.