Case Explained: AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS v. JAMES UTHMEIER, Attorney General of the State of Florida

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-22 The Seventh Circuit denied the Attorney General of Florida’s motion for a stay pending appeal of a district court’s preliminary injunction, thereby allowing the injunction to remain in effect while the underlying appeal is expedited. The court held that the Attorney General failed to make the required “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm necessary to justify staying the order. The court applied the standard for granting a stay pending appeal under *Nken v. Holder*, which requires a strong showing of likely success and irreparable injury, while reviewing the district court’s factual findings for clear error. The opinion focused on three key legal grounds supporting the district court’s decision: 1. **Personal Jurisdiction:** The court affirmed that the Northern District of Illinois had personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state Attorney General under the *Calder v. Jones* “express aiming” test. It found sufficient evidence that the Attorney General intentionally directed his enforcement action at Illinois, seeking to dissolve the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and halt its nationwide operations, citing analogous rulings from the Fifth and D.C. Circuits (*Defense Distributed v. Grewal*; *Media Matters for America v. Paxton*). 2. **Venue:** The court held venue was proper in Illinois because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the First Amendment retaliation claim occurred there, including the location of AAP’s publications and the intended adverse effects of the enforcement action on the organization’s operations in the forum state. 3. **Younger Abstention Exception:** The court ruled that the *Younger v. Harris* abstention doctrine did not apply because the district court’s findings supported the “bad faith” exception. The court determined the Attorney General brought the Florida state enforcement action without a reasonable expectation of success, as AAP is a nonprofit scientific organization whose policy statements constitute protected advocacy rather than commercial activity under the relevant Florida statutes. The court cited the Attorney General’s inflammatory public comments, misleading allegations in the complaint, and three-month delay in serving process as evidence that the suit was motivated by retaliation to suppress protected speech, not by a legitimate interest in enforcing state law. The practical consequence is that the preliminary injunction preventing the Attorney General from pursuing his state court enforcement action against AAP remains in place during the appellate review. The district court’s order barring the Attorney General from interfering with AAP’s First Amendment rights continues to operate, and an expedited briefing schedule for the full appeal will proceed separately. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.