Iowa Supreme Court Overrules 2018 Decision That State Constitution Strongly Protects Abortion Rights

In a complicated set of opinions that span 182 pages, the Iowa Supreme Court overruled their own 2018 decision (referred to in the opinion as "PPH II") and held by a vote of 5-2 that neither the due process nor the equal protection clause of Iowa's constitution grants a fundamental right to an abortion. It thus rejected subjecting abortion regulation-- here a new 24-hour waiting period-- to strict scrutiny under the state Constitution. However the court did not decide what level of scrutiny should apply.  This left the standard to be the undue burden test imposed by federal law. In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Sup. Ct., June 17, 2022), Justice Mansfield's majority opinion said in part:

[Law] professors [in an amicus brief] urge that adhering to a precedent when the membership of a court changes “refutes the cynical view that a supreme court is a political institution guided by the justices’ personal values, rather than the law.” But we know that the professors do not share that cynical view, so why do they ask us to act in fear of it? Shouldn’t we instead follow our solemn oaths to uphold the Iowa laws and constitution? In the end, court decisions should be—and we believe are—judged by the strength of their reasoning, not by the identity of the persons who wrote or joined them....

Constitutions—and courts—should not be picking sides in divisive social and political debates unless some universal principle of justice stands on only one side of that debate. Abortion isn’t one of those issues....

In summary, PPH II lacks textual and historical support. It is doctrinally inconsistent with prior Iowa jurisprudence concerning family rights that followed a balancing approach. Its rhetoric is one-sided. Its constitutional footing is unsound. While it is true that some other states have provided heightened protection for abortion rights, they have done so by invoking more relevant substantive constitutional guarantees—such as the right of privacy—not a procedural clause like due process.....

While 5 Justices concurred in that conclusion, 2 of those Justices in an opinion by Justice McDermott disagreed with the instructions on remand given in Justice Mansfield's opinion, saying in part:

I join almost all parts of the court’s opinion, including...  its overruling of ... PPH II.... But I dissent from my colleagues’ remand directing the district court to apply an “undue burden” standard, subject (apparently) to the standard being “litigated further” by the parties. In my view, we should emphatically reject—not recycle—Casey’s moribund undue burden test and instead direct the district court to apply the rational basis test to the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge.

Chief Justice Christensen filed an opinion dissenting in part, saying: 

Out of respect for stare decisis, I cannot join the majority’s decision to overrule ... PPH II ... because I do not believe any special justification “over and above the [majority’s] belief ‘that the precedent was wrongly decided’ ” warrants such a swift departure from the court’s 2018 decision....

Since 2018, the makeup of our court has significantly changed with the appointment of four new justices to replace outgoing justices. Coincidentally, all four outgoing justices were part of the 5–2 majority that recognized a fundamental right to decide whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy in the 2018 case.

Justice Appel, who is the only Justice on the court who was part of the majority in 2018, filed an 88-page dissent, concluding in part:

The majority has chosen to simply rule that strict scrutiny is not the applicable test of a statute regulating abortion ... and has remanded the case to the district court for further consideration of other issues. The problem with this approach is twofold. First, the majority opinion grossly understates the importance of this life-changing abortion decision on women. Second, the majority opinion eliminates a strong, workable, and widely accepted barrier to governmental intrusion into the reproductive choices of a woman and invites us to stare into the standard-less abyss....

I have some thoughts to seek to salvage what can be salvaged from the decision. First, the district court must recognize the rights primacy of the Iowa Constitution and reject summarily a rational basis test, which is too often no test at all. Second, if a version of the undue burden test is to be adopted, it must be with teeth.

Des Moines Register reports on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Synagogue Sues In Challenge To Florida's Restrictive Abortion Law

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court by a Palm Beach County synagogue challenging Florida's recently enacted 15-week abortion ban. The complaint (full text) in Generation to Generation, Inc. v. Florida, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 6/10/2022) contends that the law violates the free exercise, establishment, right to privacy, due process and equal protection provisions of the Florida Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

40. Some women, such as the members, congregants, supporters of Plaintiff L’Dor Va-Dor and their families have an abortion because it is required by their religious faith.  For Jews, all life is precious and thus the decision to bring new life into the world is not taken lightly or determined by state fiat.  In Jewish law, abortion is required if necessary to protect the health, mental or physical well-being of the woman, or for many other reasons not permitted under the Act.  As such, the Act prohibits Jewish women from practicing their faith free of government intrusion and thus violates their privacy rights and religious freedom.....

71. The Jewish people have often borne the brunt of the horrors that occur when the power of Christianity has merged with the power of the state.  The result has been Inquisitions, Crusades, ghettoes and pogroms for the Jews and the eventual loss of freedom for everyone else.... 

72.  The architects of the Act have taken a first step towards the dismantling of that wall and returning the state of Florida and our nation back to a time when the merger of Christianity and government produced genocide, slavery, misogyny, and the denial of equal rights and in many cases, any rights at all to those who did not share the gender, race or religion of those in power.

Jews for a Secular Democracy issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

New York Court Reaffirms Its Decision Upholding Required Coverage For Medically Necessary Abortions

In Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany v. Vullo, (NY App., June 2, 2022), a New York intermediate appellate court, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, reaffirmed its holding rejecting a challenge by several religious organizations and other plaintiffs to a New York administrative regulation  requiring health insurance policies in New York to provide coverage for medically necessary abortion services. (See prior posting) The U.S. Supreme Court had vacated the original judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of Fulton v. Philadelphia. (See prior posting.)

Appeals Court Asked To Dismiss Michigan Abortion Law Challenge

As previously reported, In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the state's 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban while a challenge to that law under the Michigan state constitution is being litigated. On Friday, instead of filing an appeal in that case, plaintiffs filed a Complaint (full text) with the Michigan Court of Appeals captioned In re Jarzynka, (Ct. App., filed 5/20/2022) seeking an Order of Superintending Control and filed a Motion for Immediate Consideration.  In the Complaint, petitioners allege:

Judge Gleicher refused to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction even though the Attorney General—a preeminent supporter of abortion rights—admits there is no adversity between the parties or actual controversy because the Attorney General refuses to defend or enforce the challenged law. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood’s claims are obviously moot and not ripe.

Prosecutors Jarzynka and Becker, Right to Life of Michigan, and the Michigan Catholic Conference respectfully ask this Court to issue an order of superintending control requiring the Hon. Elizabeth Gleicher of the Court of Claims to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Doing so will not prevent other adverse cases from moving forward.... 

At a minimum, Prosecutors Jarzynka and Becker, Right to Life of Michigan, and the Michigan Catholic Conference respectfully ask the Court to issue an order vacating the preliminary injunction order and requiring Judge Gleicher to adhere to the objective appearance-of-impropriety standard and recuse herself.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing.

Archbishop Bars Pelosi From Communion Because Of her Support For Abortion Rights

On Thursday, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone formally notified Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the consequences under Church law of her support for codifying Roe v. Wade into law:

you are not to present yourself for Holy Communion and, should you do so, you are not to be admitted to Holy Communion, until such time as you publically repudiate your advocacy for the legitimacy of abortion and confess and receive absolution of this grave sin in the sacrament of Penance.

The Notification (full text) also says in part:

The Second Vatican Council, in its Decree on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et spes, reiterated the Church’s ancient and consistent teaching that “from the first moment of conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes”....

... A Catholic legislator who supports procured abortion, after knowing the teaching of the Church, commits a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others....

The Archbishop also sent a lengthy Letter to the Faithful (full text) explaining his action, saying in part:

Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here.  Speaker Pelosi remains our sister in Christ.  Her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable elicits my admiration.  I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political.

He also sent a Letter to the Priests of the Archdiocese (full text) explaining the Canon Law basis of his decision and giving them further background.  It reads in part:

Canon 915 is found in Book IV of the Code of Canon Law, which has to do with the Sanctifying Office of the Church.  It is not in Book VI, which is the Church’s legislation on penal law.  Thus, this is not a sanction, or a penalty, but rather a declaration of fact: the Speaker is “obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin” (canon 915).  A sanction, on the other hand, such as excommunication, has its own particular process and reasons for being applied.  This is quite distinct from the application of canon 915....

Let us not fool ourselves: this is, essentially, a spiritual battle.  It is not poetic rhetoric to call the proliferation of abortion demonic.  The prophets of old excoriated the people of Israel when they passed over to the worship of Moloch, sacrificing their children to this pagan idol (cf. Lev 18:21; Lev 20:2; Ps 106:37-38).  Recall that in the biblical mentality, pagan idols are synonymous with demons.  It should come as no surprise, then, that the first one to challenge the Texas heartbeat law was the Satanic Temple, and precisely on the grounds of denial of religious freedom: they need abortion to carry out their rituals....

In closing, allow me to observe that what we are facing in this particular moment of history is a powerful reminder to us that the Priesthood is not for the faint-hearted.  Of course, it never was.  But for a long time, up until recently, we lived in a society that allowed us to imagine that it was.  Let us not fool ourselves any longer.

NPR reports on the Archbishop's action.

Oklahoma Legislature Bans Most Abortions From Time Of Fertilization

The Oklahoma legislature yesterday gave final passage to HB4327 (full text), a bill that bans abortions beginning at the time of fertilization.  However, it does not ban  Plan B, morning-after pills, or any other type of contraception or emergency contraception. It also contains exclusions for abortions to save the life of the mother in a medical emergency resulting from a physical condition, or in cases of rape, sexual assault or incest, and for procedures aimed at saving the life or health of the unborn child or removing a fetus in case of a miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy. 

Enforcement is solely by private lawsuits for injunctions or damages of not less than $10,000. Suit may be brought against anyone (other than the mother) who performs and abortion, or aids and abets procurement of an abortion, including anyone who reimburses the costs of an abortion through insurance or otherwise. State courts are deprived of jurisdiction over suits to prevent a private person from suing. Civil actions under the law are not covered by the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act, but the Act should not be construed to authorize a government entity to substantially burden any religious belief. KJRH News reports on the bill.  Earlier this year, Oklahoma enacted a ban on abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. (See prior posting.)

State Court Enjoins Enforcement Of Michigan's Pre-Roe Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., May 17, 2022), the Michigan Court of Claims issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the state's 1931 pre-Roe abortion ban while a challenge to that law under the Michigan state constitution is being litigated. The 1931 ban contains an exception only for preserving the life of the mother. The court said in part:

After 50 years of legal abortion in Michigan, there can be no doubt but that the right of personal autonomy and bodily integrity enjoyed by our citizens includes the right of a woman, in consultation with her physician, to terminate a pregnancy. From a constitutional standpoint, the right to obtain a safe medical treatment is indistinguishable from the right of a patient to refuse treatment. Based on the due process principles discussed above, the Court finds a substantial likelihood that MCL 750.14 violates the Due Process Clause of Michigan's Constitution.

ACLU of Michigan issued a press release announcing the decision.

Draft SCOTUS Opinion Overruling Roe v. Wade Is Leaked To The Press

Benefitting from an apparently unprecedented breach of Supreme Court confidentiality, Politico has obtained and published the first draft of a 67-page (plus Appendix) majority opinion written by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.  The draft opinion (full text) overrules Roe v. Wade.  It reads in part:

We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely-- the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" and "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."...

The right to abortion does not fall within this category.

The draft opinion goes on to discuss the standards that should apply to challenges of state laws limiting abortion, saying in part:

Under our precedents, rational basis review is the appropriate standard for such challenges.... It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.... These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, ... the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

Oklahoma Legislature Passes Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Law

The Oklahoma legislature on Thursday gave final approval to SB1503 (full text), a Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Law modeled after the Texas statute.  The law bars abortions once a physician detects a fetal heartbeat (usually around 6 weeks in a pregnancy) except in cases of medical emergency.  The ban is enforceable only through private civil actions for statutory damages of not less than $10,000 brought by any person other than a public official. An action may be brought against anyone who performs, induces, aids or abets an abortion (other than the woman on whom an abortion was performed). Once damages have been awarded in one action, a court may not award relief for the same abortion in subsequent actions. A court may not award attorney's fees to a defendant in actions under the law, and actions under the law are not subject to the Oklahoma Religious Freedom Act. Governor Kevin Stitt is expected to quickly sign the bill into law.

On Thursday, even though the law had not yet been signed by the governor, suit was filed in the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging the law.  The complaint (full text) in Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. State of Oklahoma, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 4/28/2022), which also names as defendants the clerk of courts in every Oklahoma county, alleges that the law violates ten separate provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution. Vox reports on developments.

Oklahoma Passes Bill Outlawing Almost All Abortions

On Wednesday, the Oklahoma legislature sent to the governor for his signature, SB612 (full text). The bill provides in part:

1. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person shall not purposely perform or attempt to perform an abortion except to save the life of a pregnant woman in a medical emergency.

2. A person convicted of performing or attempting to perform an abortion shall be guilty of a felony punishable by a fine not to exceed... $100,000.00 ... or by confinement ... for a term not to exceed ten ... years, or by such fine and imprisonment.

3.  This section does not: a. authorize the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her own unborn child....

NPR reports on the legislation.

Two Suits Challenge Michigan's 1931 Abortion Ban

Planned Parenthood and a Michigan abortion provider filed suit yesterday in the Michigan Court of Claims seeking to invalidate Michigan's 1931 statute that outlaws all abortions, except those necessary to save the life of the pregnant woman.  The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, (Ct.Cl., filed April 7, 2022), contends that the statute violates various provisions of the Michigan Constitution.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the lawsuit. Even though Attorney General Dana Nessel is named as defendant in the lawsuit, she issued a statement saying in part:

I will not use the resources of my office to defend Michigan's 1931 statute criminalizing abortion.

WMUK expands on Nessel's position:

She says her office would not defend the abortion ban using a process that assigns teams of attorneys to argue both sides of a legal controversy. Nessel says she would only do that if ordered to by a court. “I will not enforce it and neither will I defend it,” she said. “I will take no part in driving women back into the dark ages and into the back alleys.”

Nessel says she will leave it up local prosecutors to defend their ability to enforce an abortion ban in their counties if they want to do that. And the Democratic attorney general says she would not object if Republicans in the Legislature want to join the case and take on the role of defending the state’s abortion ban.

Meanwhile, yesterday Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer filed another lawsuit challenging the 1931 abortion ban. A press release from her office, describing the lawsuit, says in part:

Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer filed a lawsuit and used her executive authority to ask the Michigan Supreme Court to immediately resolve whether Michigan’s Constitution protects the right to abortion....

The lawsuit asks the court to recognize a constitutional right to an abortion under the Due Process Clause of the Michigan Constitution.  It also asks the court to stop enforcement of the 1931 Michigan abortion ban. The abortion ban violates Michigan’s due process clause, which provides a right to privacy and bodily autonomy that is violated by the state’s near-total criminal ban of abortion. It also violates Michigan’s Equal Protection Clause due to the way the ban denies women equal rights because the law was adopted to reinforce antiquated notions of the proper role for women in society.

Colorado Governor Signs Reproductive Health Equity Act

 On Monday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law (signing statement) HB 22-1279 (full text), the Reproductive Health Equity Act which provides in part:

(1) Every individual has a fundamental right to make decisions about the individual's reproductive health care, including the fundamental right to use or refuse contraception.

(2) A pregnant individual has a fundamental right to continue pregnancy and give birth or to have an abortion and make decisions how to exercise that right.

(3) A fertilized egg, embryo, or fetus does not have independent or derivative rights under the laws of this state.

CNN reports on developments.

Arizona Governor Signs Bills On Transgender Issues And Abortion

As described in a press release from the Governor's office, yesterday Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed the following bills into law:

Senate Bill 1138, sponsored by Sen. Warren Petersen, delays irreversible gender reassignment surgery until the age of 18. The bill does not prohibit puberty blocking hormones or any other hormone therapy and will not require any child to go off any prescriptions they may be taking....

The Governor also signed S.B. 1165, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto. This legislation requires all Arizona public schools, and any private schools that compete against them, to expressly designate their interscholastic athletics teams based on the biological sex of the participating students....

Continuing Arizona’s commitment to protecting preborn children, the Governor also signed S.B. 1164, sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto. The bill prohibits a physician from performing an abortion past 15 weeks gestation, except in a medical emergency....

Women who received an abortion after 15 weeks may not be prosecuted.

NBC News reports on these developments.

Idaho Governor Signs A Heartbeat Abortion Ban

Yesterday, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed Senate Bill 1309, the Fetal Heartbeat Preborn Child Protection Act (full text). While news media report that the law is modeled on Texas SB8, there are differences between the two laws. Like the Texas law, SB 1309 prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat can be detected-- generally 6 weeks, and provides for private enforcement. However the Idaho law has an exception for rape or incest (if reported to law enforcement authorities) or for medical emergencies. The Texas law only excepts medical emergency. Under the Idaho law, a private enforcement action may be brought only by the father, grandparent, sibling, aunt or uncle of the pre-born child. They may sue for actual damages plus statutory damages of $20,000. Under the Texas law, anyone (other than a state or local official) may sue. Under the Idaho law, criminal penalties and license suspensions for health care professionals who violate the law are triggered "thirty (30) days following the issuance of the judgment in any United States appellate court case in which the appellate court upholds a restriction or ban on abortion for a pre-born child because a detectable heartbeat is present on the grounds that such restriction or ban does not violate the United States constitution."

New Washington State Law Protects Abortion Rights

As reported by MyNorthwest, on Thursday, Washington Governor Jay Inslee signed HB1851 (full text) protecting the right to abortion before viability of the fetus or to protect the life or health of the pregnant individual.  It provides in part:

The state shall not penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against an individual based on their actual, potential, perceived, or alleged pregnancy outcomes. Nor shall the state penalize, prosecute, or otherwise take adverse action against someone for aiding or assisting a pregnant individual in exercising their right to reproductive freedom with their voluntary consent.

The new law also provides in part in its statement of policy:

Although the abortion rights movement has historically centered on women in our advocacy, that must no longer be the case and it is critical that we recognize that transgender, nonbinary, and gender expansive people also get pregnant and require abortion care.

Consistent with this, references to "woman" in the state's abortion laws were changed to "pregnant individual". 

Texas Supreme Court Effectively Ends Challenge To Heartbeat Abortion Ban

The Texas Supreme Court, answering a question of state law certified to it by the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, has effectively prevented abortion providers from challenging Texas "heartbeat" abortion law.  In Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, (TX Sup.Ct., March 11, 2022), the court concluded:

Texas law does not grant the state-agency executives named as defendants in this case any authority to enforce the Act’s requirements, either directly or indirectly.

CNN reports on the decision. 

Florida Passes 15-Week Abortion Ban

Yesterday the Florida legislature gave final passage to H5 (full text) which, among other things, prohibits abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy except to save the mother's life, to avert serious risk of imminent substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or in the case of a non-viable fetus that has a fatal abnormality. AP reports on the legislation.

Supreme Court Allows New Kentucky AG To Intervene To Defend Abortion Restrictions

Yesterday in Cameron v. EMW Women's Surgical Center, (Sup. Ct., March 3, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court by an 8-1 vote ruled that the newly-elected Kentucky Attorney General (a Republican) should have been allowed to intervene to defend a Kentucky statute that banned D&E abortions prior to fetal demise. The newly elected Democratic governor (through a cabinet official) had agreed not to pursue appeals of the 6th Circuit's decision holding the law unconstitutional. Justice Alito wrote the opinion for the Court. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred in the judgment, writing an opinion that reached the same conclusion as the majority, but through a different rationale. Only Justice Sotomayor dissented. CNN reports on the decision.

Pro-Life Demonstrators Have Free Exercise Claim After Arrest For Violating COVID Order

In Global Impact Ministries v. Mecklenburg County, (WD NC, March 1, 2022), a North Carolina federal district court allowed pro-life demonstrators who were arrested for violating a county-city COVID stay-at-home order to move ahead with their free exercise, but not their free speech, claim for nominal damages. Discussing the free exercise claim, the court said in part:

Until fairly recently, the Supreme Court’s Free Exercise jurisprudence was highly deferential to COVID-19 regulations that burdened religion.... That deference changed dramatically with the Supreme Court’s decisions in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo ... and Tandon v. Newsom....

Plaintiffs allege that the Proclamation precluded them from engaging in pro-life activities, which Plaintiffs believe are a form of religious ministry.... They allege that shoppers at Home Depot were exempted from gathering limits, while their religiously motivated gatherings were prohibited.... Those activities are comparable for purposes of the Free Exercise analysis.... Because shopping indoors is likely to present greater risk for spreading COVID-19 than socially distanced sidewalk advocacy, strict scrutiny must apply here....

Moving to the free speech claim, the court said in part:

Defendant Mecklenburg County argues that the Proclamation was a valid content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction.... The Court agrees....

There is admittedly an obvious logical incongruity in finding that the Proclamation was not content-neutral for purposes of the free exercise claim, but content-neutral for purposes of the free speech claim. But neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit has applied Tandon’s modified approach to content neutrality outside of the context of free exercise claims.

Satanic Temple Sues Billboard Company Over Abortion Ritual Ads

The Satanic Temple filed suit last week in an Arkansas federal district court claiming that a billboard advertising company violated the Arkansas Civil Rights Act by refusing to perform under its contract  to put up billboards in Arkansas and Indiana that would spread awareness of TST's Satanic Abortion Ritual. Arkansas Code § 16-123-107 prohibits religious discrimination in contractual and property transactions. The complaint (full text) in The Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Lamar Media Company, (WD AR, filed 2/25/2022), alleges in part:

Part of this case will involve proving that TST’s Satanic Abortion Ritual is substantively different than getting a secular abortion, even though it involves the abortive act, such that this advertising contract contemplated a religious message.....

The Satanic Abortion Ritual is a ceremonious casting off of guilt, doubt, and mental discomfort that the member may be experiencing in connection with their election to abort the pregnancy.

The complaint also alleged breach of contract claims. Arkansas Democrat Gazette reported on the lawsuit.