Kansas Supreme Court Invalidates Ban on D&E Abortions, Abortion Clinic Regulations

In Hodes & Nauser MDs, P.A. v. Kobach, (KS Sup. Ct., July 5, 2024), the Kansas Supreme Court, in a 5-1 decision, held that a 2015 statute that bans (except in limited circumstances) so-called "dismemberment abortions" violates the Kansas state constitution. The court said in part:

S.B. 95 effectively bans a common method of second-trimester abortion called Dilation and Evacuation except when a D & E is "necessary to preserve the life of the pregnant women" or to prevent a "substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman."...

The State devoted much of its brief to inviting us to reverse our earlier ruling in this case that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion. We decline the invitation....

The State has not carried its burden to establish S.B. 95 is narrowly tailored to furthering any compelling interest.

Justice Wilson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I write separately because I believe S.B. 95 is unconstitutional, though for a different reason than the majority. In my view, this purported law is unconstitutionally vague, leaving a doctor vulnerable to criminal culpability, while providing dubious notice and insufficient explanation to the doctor of what conduct is criminalized. Thus, prosecutors and juries determine retroactively when and how S.B. 95's rules are violated.

Justice Stegall dissented, saying in part:

First, it is noteworthy that the majority cannot bring itself to acknowledge the government's compelling interest in unborn human life. Yes, the majority maneuvers around this problem by skipping it in favor of its narrow tailoring analysis. But the truth is, the majority doesn't answer this question because it is so decidedly troublesome to the majority's new section 1 regime. For the majority, an interest in protecting unborn life— including the dignity of that life—is only "aspirational" with "many nuances and facets" that have "potentially far-reaching precedential effect."...  For those unfamiliar with legalese, this translates to, "We don't want to tie our hands with such inconveniences."

In a second 5-1 decision in Hodes & Nauser, MDs. P.A. v. Stanek, (KS Sup. Ct., July 5, 2024), the Kansas Supreme Court, in majority and dissenting opinions covering 114 pages, struck down "a series of statutes and implementing regulations ... relating to licensure of abortion provider facilities." The court said in part:

... [T]he State failed to meet its evidentiary burden to show the Challenged Laws further its identified compelling interest in protecting maternal health and regulating the medical profession as it relates to maternal health. Without this showing, the Challenged Laws do not survive strict scrutiny and are constitutionally infirm. We decline the State's request to sever the unconstitutional licensure requirements because the State failed to meet its burden to show severability is proper under applicable Kansas law. Finally, we deem it unnecessary to address the district court's finding of an equal protection violation because we are affirming the district court's decision on grounds that the State failed to satisfy its burden to show the Challenged Laws further a compelling state interest....

Justice Rosen and Justice Biles each filed a concurring opinion.

Justice Wilson filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

... I am duty bound to follow the clear and essential path illuminated by our precedent. This is necessary to protect the stability, predictability, and trust in our legal system. My decision to do so is further buttressed by the people's vote on this very matter, which can be interpreted as a repudiation of legislative attempts to eliminate the core holdings of Hodes I—holdings which survive today's confusing and troubling revisions.

Justice Stegall filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

The saga of this court's section 1 jurisprudence has now taken its bizarre—but predicted—turn. Recall I wrote at the conclusion of my lengthy dissent in Hodes I that a legal regime of unrestricted access to abortion is now "the judicially preferred policy tail wagging the structure of government dog" and, as such, every rule and even judicial coherence and consistency will "give way, at every turn, to the favored policy." ... Should proof of this claim be required, one need look no further than the pudding of today's decision.... The betrayal of this court's promise of neutral, uniform, and rational constitutional adjudication is as far-reaching as it is audacious—and its damaging impact on this institution's legitimacy will be felt for years to come.

UPI reports on the decision.

 

Two Additional Courts Enjoin Enforcement of New Title IX Rules

In addition to the nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the Department of Education's new Title IX rules on transgender discrimination (see prior posting), two other federal district court last week issued more geographically limited preliminary injunctions against enforcement of the same rules. In State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services, (MD FL, July 3, 2024),  a Florida federal district court enjoined enforcement within Florida, saying in part:

HHS and the Final Rule interpret Title IX, and hence section 1557, to prohibit discrimination based on “gender identity.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 37,699 (45 C.F.R. § 92.101(a)(2)). The Final Rule is stillborn and a nullity if Title IX does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of “gender identity.” The Eleventh Circuit has spoken on this point, clearly: Title IX does not address discrimination on the basis of gender identity. Adams v. Sch. Bd. of St. John’s Cnty., 57 F. 4th 791, 812–15 (11th Cir. 2022) (en banc). Frankly, this ends the issue—the new Rule appears to be a dead letter in the Eleventh Circuit.

In State of Kansas v. U.S. Department of Education, (D KS, July 2, 2024), a Kansas federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the new rules in Kansas, Alaska, Utah and Wyoming, saying in part:

... [T]he purpose of Title IX was to protect “biological women from discrimination in education[;] [s]uch purpose makes it difficult to sincerely argue that, at the time of enactment, ‘discrimination on the basis of sex’ included gender identity, sex stereotypes, sexual orientation, or sex characteristics.”... The DoE’s reinterpretation of Title IX to place gender identity on equal footing with (or in some instances arguably stronger footing than) biological sex would subvert Congress’ goals of protecting biological women in education....

... [T]he court finds that the Final Rule involves issues of both vast economic and political significance and therefore involves a major question.... As such, Congress must have given the agency “clear statutory authorization” to promulgate such a Final Rule.....The court finds that Congress did not give such clear statutory authorization to the DoE....

... [T]he Final Rule violates the Spending Clause because it introduces conditions for spending that were not unambiguously clear in Title IX....

The court finds that Plaintiffs have shown that the Final Rule violates he First Amendment by chilling speech through vague and overbroad language.....

 [T]he court finds that the Final Rule is arbitrary and capricious because it offers an implausible explanation for agency action, is a sharp departure from prior action without a reasonable explanation, and failed to consider important interests as discussed herein.

Kansas Legislature Overrides Veto of Bill Requiring Information on Patient's Reason for Seeking Abortion

On April 29, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Laura Kelly's veto of House Bill 2749. (Full text of bill and veto message). The bill requires abortion providers to ask each patient which of 11 reasons was the most important factor in the patient's decision to seek an abortion.  Biannual reports that do not disclose the identity of patients or doctors involved are to be filed with the state. They are to tabulate the reasons given and also provide demographic information about patients. A public report on abortions performed in the state is then to be issued. In vetoing the bill, Governor Kelly called the bill "invasive and unnecessary". ADF issued a press release supporting the legislature's override.

Court Upholds Kansas Law Requiring Biological Sex at Birth on Driver's Licenses

 In State of Kansas ex rel. Kobach v. Harper, (KS Dist. Ct., March 11, 2024), a Kansas state trial court, in issuing a preliminary injunction, rejected challenges to a Kansas law that requires driver's licenses to reflect a person's "biological sex, either male or female, at birth." The court said in part:

The crux of Intervenors’ constitutional argument is that requiring KDOR to display a licensee’s sex at birth on a driver’s license and in the KDOR database violates Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights. Section 1 says: “All men are possessed of equal and inalienable natural rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” ...

[The Kansas Supreme court decision in] Hodes said Kansans have the right to control their own bodies. It did not say Kansans have a fundamental state constitutional right to control what information is displayed on a state-issued driver’s license. And the Intervenors’ testimony at the hearing was that producing a driver’s license indicating a sex different than their expressed gender did not result in physical violence, verbal harassment, loss of employment, loss of benefits, refusal of service, or negative interaction with law enforcement. Rather, Intervenors testified about feeling embarrassed, humiliated, or unsafe if someone gave them a puzzled look, hesitated, or questioned their identity when looking at their driver’s license. They testified to the discomfort of airport security pat downs that are a universal feature of modern travel. K.S.A. 77-207 does not violate any right to personal autonomy under Section 1....

Finally, Intervenors assert that K.S.A. 77-207 deprives them of equal protection of the law .... The rules are the same for identifying each person who seeks a driver’s license. Similarly situated people are not treated differently under the statute, thus there is no equal protection violation.

AP reports on the decision.

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Kansas Abortion Disclosure and Waiting Period Requirements

 In Hodes & Nauser MDs PA v. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., Oct. 30, 2023), a Kansas state trial court in a 92-page opinion issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion disclosure and waiting period requirements in Kansas Woman’s-Right-to-Know Act and its Medication Abortion Reversal Amendment. The court, relying on state constitutional provisions, said in part:

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously noted that trial courts face a “heavy task” when wrestling with these issues, and this Court concurs in the observation that no easy decisions exist on what may be one of the most divisive social issues of our modern history.... Inevitably, some likely will disagree or take issue with the interim conclusions reached herein on Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction, whether based upon specific moral, ethical, or spiritual concerns. However, such considerations are (and must be) separate and apart from this Court’s role in evaluating the potential constitutional encroachment (or lack thereof) of the State’s efforts to impose its authority under the auspices of police power, given our state Founding Father’s emphasis on (and the primacy of) the people’s inalienable natural rights. Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation, and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy—all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech, whether to speak or avoid compelled speech, is also a fundamental right that our state founders held dear and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus, it demands protection under a strict scrutiny standard in this case....

The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue. Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people. In this case, the preliminary record before the Court demonstrates that the provisions at issue invade and unconstitutionally infringe upon Kansans’ fundamental rights under Section 1 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

KWCH News reported on the decision.

Kansas AG Asks 10th Circuit To End Required Use of Preferred Pronouns

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach in an Oct. 6 letter (full text) to the Chief Judge of the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals asks the court to end the practice of some district and circuit court judges to require references to counsel, parties and witnesses by use of their preferred pronouns.  The letter says in part:

There are lawyers in my office who, for both religious and non-religious reasons, reject the idea of individuals dictating their own applicable pronouns....

The idea that a person can dictate his or her own pronouns based on internal feelings and then expect others to go along with that choice is a quite recent development....  But regardless of the merits of this idea as an abstract matter, enlisting the power of the state to force others to affirm such individual choices or feelings crosses a line and raises major questions regarding compelled speech and the First Amendment.

Many people have religious beliefs that would prevent them from using pronouns that do not correspond to a person’s sex. In Christianity (the most common religion in the United States), this position generally proceeds from interpretations of Genesis 1:27 and other scriptures that speak of a male/female dichotomy among persons. Other major world religions likewise have doctrines that point in the same direction.... To force these individuals to violate their religious beliefs in order to be heard in court is a restriction on their free exercise of religion....

Indeed, “gender identity” is the subject of growing wave of legislation and litigation. So requiring those appearing in court to use (or refrain from using) certain pronouns may reveal a prejudgment on issues in litigation.

The Attorney General's office also issued a press release summarizing the letter.

EEOC Sues Chipotle For Manager's Harassment of Muslim Teen

 The EEOC announced that last week it filed a Title VII suit against the restaurant chain Chipotle contending that a manager at a Kansas restaurant location harassed a teenage employee for wearing a hijab. According to the EEOC:

During the summer of 2021, an assistant manager began repeatedly asking [the employee] to remove her hijab, or headscarf, pressuring her to show him her hair. Despite the teen’s rejections and complaints to management, Chipotle failed to act to stop the manager’s harassment. Chipotle’s inaction resulted in the manager escalating his abuse, ultimately grabbing and forcibly removing part of the teen’s hijab.

After the teen reported the incident, Chipotle again failed to take prompt corrective action, and she was forced to submit her two weeks’ notice. The EEOC further alleges that Chipotle retaliated against the teen by refusing to schedule her to work additional shifts unless she agreed to transfer locations, while allowing her harasser to continue working at the same location.

Kansas AG Says Previously Modified Birth Certificates Must Be Changed Back to Reflect Biological Sex

In April, the Kansas legislature overrode Governor Kelly's veto of Senate Bill 180 which defines "sex" as biological sex for purposes of various state laws, rules and regulations. Yesterday, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach issued Attorney General Opinion 2023-2 (full text) which interprets the new law as requiring birth certificates that have previously been modified to now be changed back to reflect the individual's sex assigned at birth. Similarly, driver's license records that have been modified must be changed back and future licenses must be issued on the basis of biological sex. However, the individual may present themselves as the opposite sex in their driver's license photo. The Attorney General also concluded that the new law does not apply to housing decisions by state correctional facilities since those decisions are not mandated by state rules or regulations.

Court Enjoins Part Of School's Policy On Transgender Students' Preferred Names

Ricard v. USD 475 Geary County, KS School Board, (D KS, May 9, 2022), is a suit brought by a Christian middle school math teacher who objects on religious grounds the school's policy of requiring teachers to refer to transgender students by their preferred names and pronouns, and requiring teachers not to disclose those names and pronouns to parents without the student's consent. A Kansas federal district court enjoined the school district from from disciplining the teacher for referring to a student by the student’s preferred name and pronouns in communications with the student’s parents in the regular course of the teacher's duties. The parties reached an agreement on the other aspect of the school's policy. The teacher would use students' preferred names, but not their preferred pronouns.

Kansas Governor Vetoes Transgender Athlete Ban

The Kansas City Star reports that on Friday, Kansas Governor Laura Kelley vetoed Senate Bill 160 which banned transgender women from competing in women's sports. The ban would have applied to interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural and club athletic teams or sports sponsored by a public elementary or secondary school or a postsecondary educational institution, and to teams that compete against these schools. In her veto message, Kelley said in part:

We all want a fair and safe place for our kids to play and compete. However, this bill didn’t come from the experts at our schools, our athletes, or the Kansas State High School Activities Association. It came from politicians trying to score political points.

Kansas Teacher Sues Over Requirement To Use Students' Preferred Pronouns

 CNN reported last week on a lawsuit filed by a Fort Riley, Kansas middle school teacher who was disciplined for refusing to call a transgender student by the student's preferred name and pronouns. The complaint alleges in part:

Any policy that requires Ms. Ricard to refer to a student by a gendered, non-binary, or plural pronoun (e.g., he/him, she/her, they/them, zhe/zher, etc.) or salutation (Mr., Miss, Ms.) or other gendered language that is different from the student's biological sex actively violates Ms. Ricard's religious beliefs.

10th Circuit: Plaintiff Lacks Standing To Challenge Kansas Vaccination Requriement

 In Baker v. USD 229 Blue Valley, (10th Cir., Nov. 3, 2020), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of standing a mother's lawsuit challenging Kansas' vaccination law which requires school children to be vaccinated, but allows religious exemptions. Plaintiff's son, S.F.B., was granted a religious exemption. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that nevertheless she suffered injury. The court said in part:

Ms. Baker’s unusual standing theory falls outside any recognized notion of injury based on the potential enforcement of a law. She argues the District misapplied Kansas law in granting the religious exemption to S.F.B. in response to the Bakers’ statement. She asserts that if the District would apply the law correctly, it would revoke the religious exemption, injuring her and S.F.B. From this she contends there is a credible injury in fact....

First, we evaluate Ms. Baker’s injury argument that the District may revoke S.F.B.’s religious exemption because Kansas law compels that result. We find that Ms. Baker has not shown a concrete, imminent, and non-speculative injury in fact.

Second, we consider Ms. Baker’s contention that Kansas law inhibits her from exercising certain “options” for S.F.B. including home schooling and child care. We reject this theory because Ms. Baker alleges only a “some day” intention to exercise these options that is insufficient to demonstrate an injury in fact.

Settlement Reached With Kansas Churches Challenging COVID-19 Limits On Services

After two Baptist churches in Kansas obtained a temporary restraining order  against enforcement of a provision in Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's COVID-19 executive orders that ban religious assemblies of more than ten congregants (see prior posting), the governor has reached a settlement with the churches. Hutchinson News reports:

The proposed resolution to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court would allow congregations in Junction City and Dodge City to conduct in-person services if attendees complied with safety protocols. It also created a window for the governor to revise her mass-gathering order so it would no longer apply to religious meetings.

Kansas Churches Get TRO To Protect Against Enforcement Of Congregant Number Limits

In First Baptist Church v. Kelly, (D KS, April 18, 2020), a Kansas federal district court granted two churches a temporary restraining order against enforcement of a provision in Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's COVID-19 executive orders that ban religious assemblies of more than ten congregants.  The TRO's however included specific safety precautions that the churches had accepted. In granting the TRO, the court said in part:

Plaintiffs have made a substantial showing that development of the current restriction on religious activities shows religious activities were specifically targeted for more onerous restrictions than comparable secular activities. The Governor previously designated the attendance of religious services as an “essential function” that was exempt from the general prohibition on mass gatherings. That designation has not been rescinded or modified, yet in EO 20-18 and EO 20-25 churches and religious activities appear to have been singled out among essential functions for stricter treatment. It appears to be the only essential function whose core purpose – association for the purpose of worship – had been basically eliminated. For example, the secular facilities that are still exempt from the mass gathering prohibition or that are given more lenient treatment, despite the apparent likelihood they will involve mass gatherings, include airports, childcare locations, hotels, food pantries and shelters, detoxification centers, retail establishments (subject to the distancing and “essential function” purpose noted above), retail food establishments, public transportation, job centers, office spaces used for essential functions, and the apparently broad category of “manufacturing, processing, distribution, and production facilities.”...

ADF issued a press release announcing the grant of the TRO. (See prior related posting.)

Churches Sue Challenging Kansas Stay-At-Home Order

Two churches filed suit in a Kansas federal district court yesterday challenging a provision in Gov. Laura Kelly's COVID-19 stay-at-home order (Executive Order 20-18) which bans religious services with more than ten congregants. The complaint (full text) in First Baptist Church v. Kelly, (D KS, filed 4/16/2020) contends that the order violates plaintiffs' 1st Amendment rights as well as their rights under the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act.  ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. The complaint alleges in part:

While EO 20-18 carves out broad exemptions for 26 types of secular activities from this gathering ban, including, bars and restaurants, libraries, shopping malls, retail establishments, and office spaces the order singled out “churches and other religious services or activities” to expressly prohibit any type of gathering of more than ten non-performing individuals, regardless of whether social distancing, hygiene, and other efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 were practiced.

(See prior related posting.)

Kansas Supreme Court Says Legislative Attempt To Revoke Governor's COVID-19 Order Was Invalid

In Kelly v. Legislative Coordinating Council, (KA Sup. Ct., April 11, 2020), the Kansas Supreme Court upheld the effectiveness of Kansas Governor Laura Kelly's executive order (full text) which, among numerous other things, bars gatherings of more than ten people in churches and other houses of worship. (The order does allow more than ten individuals if they are conducting or performing the religious service, so long as they follow safety protocols including six-foot distancing.)  The court held that attempts by the Legislative Coordinating Council to revoke the governor's executive order were invalid. The court said that its decision does not rule on "whether Executive Order 20-18 was a legally valid or constitutional exercise of the Governor's authority, despite its limitation on religious gatherings." NPR reports on the decision.

Settlement Reached In Suit Over Homeless Shelter

A settlement has been reached in the RLUIPA lawsuit filed last month (see prior posting) by the Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church against the city of Lenexa, Kansas over denial of zoning approval for an overnight winter homeless shelter. According to a press release from the church's law firm, the settlement agreement allows the shelter to operate from Dec. 13 to April 1, with various conditions.  In addition the city has agreed to work with the Church to produce an ordinance within the next 3 years to allow homeless ministries in city.

Court Rejects Parents' Objections To Vaccination Exemption Form

In W.B. v. Crossroads Academy- Central Street, (WD MO, Nov. 22, 2019), a Missouri federal district court rejected constitutional challenges by parents to the form that Missouri requires to be completed in order to claim a religious exemption for a school child from vaccination requirements. The form contains language strongly encouraging parents to obtain vaccinations for their children. In rejecting the parents' challenge, the court said in part:

Although the Bakers say they have religious scruples against  vaccination, they are not entitled to insist on governmental silence rather than advocacy....

The parental signature at the bottom of the religious exemption form serves to verify the required parental inserts of the child’s name, the types of vaccination objected to, and the grounds for the exemption, simply asserted as “religious.” Filling in, signing and submitting the form in no way comments on or endorses the State’s message....

The nearest legal problem area may be in the contention that contraception opponents should not be required to be “complicit” in the procedure by filing exemption forms. See, Wheaton College v. Burwell, 573 U.S. 958 (2014). In this situation, however, the filing of forms does not advance vaccination use but simply results in an exemption.

Kansas News Service reports on the decision.

Church Sues Under RLUIPA To Operate Homeless Shelter

The Shawnee Mission Unitarian Universalist Church has filed a RLUIPA lawsuit against the city of Lenexa, Kansas which has denied the church zoning approval to operate an overnight homeless shelter for the winter months.  According to KCUR News, the church, in cooperation with the nonprofit Project 1020, wants to use the former elementary school building in which it is located as a shelter for up to 40 people. The building now is zoned residential single family, though it borders commercial and office properties. Lexana has no areas zoned for homeless shelters.

Kansas Supreme Court Strikes Down D&E Abortion Ban

In Hodes & Nauser MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt, (KA Sip. Ct., April 26, 2019), the Kansas Supreme Court by a 6-1 vote upheld the trial court's injunction against the enforcement of S.B. 95 which bans, with limited exceptions, dilation and evacuation abortions in Kansas. The per curiam opinion of five justices said in part:

We hold today that section 1 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights protects all Kansans' natural right of personal autonomy, which includes the right to control one's own body, to assert bodily integrity, and to exercise self-determination. This right allows a woman to make her own decisions regarding her body, health, family formation, and family life—decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy.

Under our strict scrutiny standard, the State is prohibited from restricting that right unless it can show it is doing so to further a compelling government interest and in a way that is narrowly tailored to that interest. The Doctors have shown they are substantially likely to prevail on their claim that S.B. 95 does not meet this standard. So the trial court's temporary injunction enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 95 is appropriate.

On remand to the trial court for a full resolution of the issues on the merits, the State is certainly free to assert any interests it believes compelling and show how S.B. 95 is narrowly tailored to those interests. We are aware that the evidentiary record is sparsely developed because of the narrow issue previously before that court: simply whether a temporary injunction should be granted. We, thus, decline the concurring opinion's invitation to guess at what the arguments and evidence might be in order to provide guidance on remand.

Justice Biles filed a concurring opinion and Justice Stegall filed a dissent. The 3 opinions span 199 pages. NPR reports on the decision.