A federal appeals court is weighing potential conflicts of interest charges against the Obama appointee who blocked undercover videographers from releasing materials documenting organ harvesting in the abortion industry.
On Wednesday, a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals asked parties involved in the lawsuit against the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) suit to respond to the pro-life organization's motion for a new judge. In June, CMP demanded a new judge after discovering that Judge William Orrick has "an ongoing and longstanding professional relationship" with Planned Parenthood. Orrick helped served as counsel with the Good Samaritan Family Resource Center (GSFRC), which hosts a San Francisco Planned Parenthood facility in its complex. The nonprofit group lists Planned Parenthood as one of its "key partnerships" on its website.
"Working in partnership with Planned Parenthood, Good Samaritan's on-site clinic provides family planning services to medically uninsured adults and teens," the site says.
Orrick placed a restraining order on the Center for Medical Progress after it began releasing footage of Planned Parenthood officials and participants at National Abortion Federation conferences candidly discussing the harvesting of baby organs obtained through abortion. The groups sued CMP. Orrick had told the Senate he ceased affiliation with GSFRC in 1999 during his confirmation process, but CMP and its lawyers claim he remained affiliated with the group even as he ruled on the case. Peter Been, a CMP attorney and special counsel with the Thomas More Society called the panel's request for response a welcome development in the case.
"GSFRC continues in an active joint venture with this plaintiff PPFA affiliate. At the same time, Judge Orrick has been held out to the public as serving as an Emeritus Board Member of GSFRC," Breen said in a statement. "This relationship was not discussed to the parties, nor did Judge Orrick disclose its full extent or duration to the U.S. Senate during his confirmation process."
The panel asked NAF and Planned Parenthood to specifically "address the basis for the district court's denial of [CMP's] motion for disqualification of Judge William H. Orrick, as well as "Orrick's relationship with Good Samaritan Family Resource Center."
Neither NAF nor Planned Parenthood returned requests for comment about the panel's request or the motion for Orrick's recusal.
The panel also gave Orrick the opportunity to respond to the alleged conflict of interest "if [he] so desires." The parties have 14 days to respond to the February 28 order.