As previously reported, in 2019 an Iowa state trial court judge held that Iowa's "fetal heartbeat" abortion law violates the Iowa state constitution. The case was not appealed. However, in 2022 the state filed a motion to dissolve the injunction and revive the law. The trial court refused to do so, and that decision was appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. Now in Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 16, 2023), the Iowa Supreme Court announced that it was evenly divided, 3-3, on the case (with one Justice recused), so that by operation of law the trial court's decision stands. However individual Justices filed opinions in the case.
The newly decided case was made more complicated by a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court last year in which it rejected subjecting a different abortion regulation to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution, but did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply. This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. (See prior posting.)
Now in last week's decision on the fetal heartbeat law, Justice Waterman (joined by Chief Justice Christensen and Justice Mansfield ) wrote that they would not grant the discretionary writ of certiorari, thus refusing to review the trial court decision. He went on to indicate that even if review were granted, they would affirm the trial court, saying in part:
The law as of today has not changed in a way that removes the “constitutional defect” in the fetal heartbeat bill. The undue burden test remains the governing standard under the Iowa Constitution, and the State concedes, as it must, that the fetal heartbeat bill is unconstitutional under that test. The State therefore has failed to establish that the district court acted illegally. There is no basis for certiorari relief.
Justice McDonald filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDermott and May, saying in part:
Because there was no controlling decision from this court..., the district court should have applied this court’s other controlling precedents to constitutional claims of this type. Under this court’s controlling precedents, where there is no fundamental right at issue, statutes are subject only to rational basis review.
Justice McDermott filed a separate opinion, joined by Justices McDonald and May, saying in part:
Last year, we were presented with an appeal challenging the constitutionality of a different statute regulating abortion, yet we failed to declare the constitutional standard that applied. This case again presented that same basic task. And for the second time in as many years, we’ve ducked it. It isn’t for us to dictate abortion policy in the state, but simply to interpret and apply the law as best we can in cases that come before us. We fail the parties, the public, and the rule of law in our refusal today to apply the law and decide this case.
Des Moines Register reports on reactions to the decision.
