RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina’s 12-week abortion ban has its first day in court Wednesday — but it isn’t the judge’s first time presiding over a case on abortion.
Judge Catherine Eagles, a district judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a North Carolina OB-GYN against the state’s new abortion law. She’s spent around 40 years as a judge and lawyer, and now, Eagles will decide whether to block the 12-week abortion ban from going into effect July 1.
The lawsuit seeks to overturn multiple provisions, such as inconsistencies about when a medical abortion can be performed — until 10 weeks or 12 weeks. However, North Carolina Senate Republicans moved in the past week to amend that provision to make it clearer. They sent a new bill including that change to Gov. Roy Cooper on Tuesday.
Other issues mentioned in the lawsuit include the bill’s 72-hour waiting period and the requirement for sexual assault or incest survivors to go to a hospital for an abortion after the 12-week period.
The case will be heard in Eagles’ court Wednesday in Greensboro at 9:30 a.m.
But who is Eagles, and what experience will she bring to the bench Wednesday? Here’s a closer look at her early career, her nomination to district judge and a handful of notable cases she’s ruled on in her court.
Judge Catherine Eagles, a district judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a North Carolina OB-GYN against the state’s new abortion law.
Judge Catherine Eagles, a district judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, is presiding over a lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood South Atlantic and a North Carolina OB-GYN against the state’s new abortion law.
Eagles’ early years in law
The Tennessean judge graduated from Rhodes College, formerly Southwestern at Memphis, in 1979. Following her education at Rhodes, she attended George Washington University Law School and picked up one of the first jobs of her career as a staff law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit in the early 1980s.
Between 1983 and 2010, Eagles worked as a law clerk for Judge J. Smith Henley in the 8th Circuit appeals court, worked in a private practice for almost a decade and then served as a North Carolina Superior Court resident judge for nearly two decades.
Eagles’ nomination to NC district judge by Obama
Former President Barack Obama nominated Eagles to ascend to federal district judge status in 2010, and she was later confirmed by the U.S. Senate in a voice vote.
Eagles was nominated alongside three other district judges. “I am honored to put forward these highly qualified candidates for the federal bench,” Obama said at the time. “They will be distinguished public servants and valuable additions to the United States District Court.”
In her confirmation hearing, Eagles was asked by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, if she would be able to disregard her personal beliefs and decide a case only based on facts. Eagles said she had “respect for the rule of law.”
“Part of the role of the judge is to ensure a predictable process, to ensure the law as it has been expressed in higher courts,” Eagles said in her testimony.
Eagles was also questioned on her idea of what the scope of congressional power should be, as well as sentencing guidelines.
Big cases from Eagles’ time as NC district judge
Eagles has presided over a handful of high-profile cases, including one abortion case almost a decade ago that could give insight into what action she takes Wednesday.
A 2011 North Carolina law required abortion providers to perform ultrasounds for people seeking abortions and explain and describe the fetus in detail. The law was challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union on the basis of being unconstitutional, which brought the case to Eagles’ court.
The district judge ultimately struck down the law, saying it was in violation of the First Amendment.
“The Supreme Court has never held that a state has the power to compel a health care provider to speak, in his or her own voice, the state’s ideological message in favor of carrying a pregnancy to term and this court declines to do so today,” Eagles said in her 2014 ruling.
The state attempted to appeal the law to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the court refused to review the case and sustained Eagles’ ruling.
She also played a major role in the trial of North Carolina’s former Democratic Sen. John Edwards, who was indicted on six felony charges in 2011 and faced around 30 years in prison.
Edwards was former 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry’s running mate, and he was a U.S. senator from 1999 to 2005. He was charged with lying to the Federal Election Commission and breaking campaign finance laws to hide an extramarital affair.
His hearings took place in North Carolina’s Middle District, in which Eagles presided over the case. The former senator attempted to dismiss the charges, but Eagles rejected his bid.
Eagles did postpone the start of the trial due to Edwards’ receiving medical treatment for a heart condition, but she later resumed jury selection in 2012.
The U.S. Justice Department dropped the case after a jury found Edwards not guilty on one charge and failed to reach a verdict on five others.
One of Eagles’ more recent cases involved North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, who now says he won’t defend parts of the state’s 12-week abortion ban he found to be unconstitutional.
In that previous case, Republican opponent Jim O’Neill claimed the attorney general had created a campaign ad with false information about him during the 2020 elections. O’Neill lost to Stein in his bid for statewide office.
The complaint led to an investigation by Wake County District Attorney Lorrin Freeman, which Stein contended was based on an unconstitutional law.
The law Stein challenged makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly spread false statements about a candidate running for office as a way to lessen their chances of winning.
Despite originally granting Stein a temporary injunction, Eagles reversed her ruling and allowed Freeman to pursue prosecution against Stein again.
“The statute advances compelling state interests in protecting against fraud and libel in election and is narrowly tailored to serve those interests,” Eagles wrote in her ruling.
However, a federal appeals court later ruled in Stein’s favor, and Freeman closed the investigation into the attorney general in February.
---------
