Student Statement Opposing Reproductive Rights Issue Must Be Read During School Announcements

 In Nielson v. Ann Arbor Public Schools, (ED MI, Nov. 4, 2022), a Michigan federal district court issued a temporary restraining order requiring a public high school to read an announcement from the school's Republican Club in opposition to the Reproductive Rights constitutional amendment on the Nov. 8 ballot.  The school contended that reading it would violate the Michigan Campaign Finance Act which bars the school from advocating for ballot issues.  However, the school was permitting students who favor the ballot proposal to take part in a walkout sponsored by the National Organization for Women.  The court said in part:

Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment claim....

The Court finds that Defendants seek to silence Plaintiffs’ appropriate speech as to Proposal 3 by refusing to broadcast it with their morning announcements, while permitting students in favor of Proposal 3 to cut classes, and to demonstrate on school property in favor of Proposal 3.

Thomas More Law Center issued a press release announcing the decision (with links to pleadings in the case as well).

Cert. Denied in Mootness Dismissal of Free Exercise Challenge to Mask Mandate

The U.S. Supreme Court this morning denied review in Resurrection School v. Hertel, (Docket No. 22-181, certiorari denied 10/31/2022). (Order List.) In the case, an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. (See prior posting.)

Physician Assistant Sues Hospital That Fired Her Over Treatment Of Transgender Patients

 A suit was filed on Tuesday in a Michigan federal district court by a woman who had worked as a physician assistant for 17 years, but was then fired for refusing, on religious grounds, to refer patients for gender transitioning drugs and procedures and to use pronouns that correspond to a patient's gender identity rather than their biological sex. In a claim denied by the fired employee, it was also claimed she altered template pronouns on medical records.  The complaint (full text) in Kloosterman v. Metropolitan Hospital, (WD MI, filed 10/11/2022), alleges in part:

9. By exhibiting open hostility toward Ms. Kloosterman’s religious beliefs, University of Michigan Health-West officials violated the Free Exercise Clause.... 

10. By accommodating secular preferences while refusing to grant a religious accommodation to Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West’s actions trigger and fail strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.... 

11. By seeking to compel Ms. Kloosterman to speak biology-obscuring pronouns that would violate her conscience and her medical judgment, as doing so could cause patients to miss potentially life-saving screenings, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Free Speech Clause.... 

12. When it engaged in the aforementioned actions and fired Ms. Kloosterman, University of Michigan Health-West also violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, as well as Article I, §§ 2, 4, and 5 of the Michigan Constitution and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act of 1976....

First Liberty issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Michigan Ban On Use Of State Funds For Private And Religious Schools Upheld

In Hile v. State of Michigan, (WD MI, Sept. 30, 2022), a Michigan federal district court dismissed free exercise and equal protection challenges to a provision in the Michigan Constitution that prohibits the use of state funds, tax benefits or vouchers to aid "any private, denominational or other nonpublic, pre-elementary, elementary, or secondary school" or student attendance at such schools. Plaintiffs contend that the provision reflects an anti-religious and anti-Catholic sentiment. Plaintiffs base their challenge on the unavailability of Michigan's Section 529 savings plan for them to use to send their children to private religious schools. The state, however, argues that its Plan is not available for any private high school tuition. Plaintiffs argue that the state is misinterpreting its own legislation.  The court said in part:

The court is satisfied that principles of comity preclude merits consideration of plaintiffs’ First Amendment Challenges because they would require this court to disregard the State’s own interpretation and consistent application of its own tax law, neither of which raises First Amendment concerns. Plaintiffs can take the issue up with Michigan tax authorities in the ordinary administration of the Michigan income tax collection process. But unless and until Michigan changes the interpretation and application of its own tax law, and replaces it with the version Plaintiffs say it should have, there is no First Amendment issue.

The court also rejected plaintiffs' equal protection challenge, saying that it is unwilling to expand the "political process" doctrine. Plaintiffs had argued that by placing the limits on use of state funds in the state Constitution, the state had burdened their ability to seek changes in the law. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Suit By Mosque Over Zoning Denials Can Move Ahead

In Adam Community Center v. City of Troy, (ED MI, Sept. 28., 2022), a Michigan federal district court refused to dismiss RLUIPA and constitutional claims against the city of Troy, Michigan. Plaintiff alleged wrongful denial of necessary zoning variances so plaintiff could use its property for Muslim religious services and classes. The court said in part:

Plaintiff has identified pieces of circumstantial evidence that may lead a fact-finder to conclude Troy acted with discriminatory animus towards Muslims. Thus, a question of fact on this claim exists and summary judgment is denied....

[T]here exists a question of fact for trial as to whether ZO § 6.21 was actually applied in a neutral manner or whether it was applied for the purpose of excluding Muslim assemblies from Troy...

The record contains ample evidence to support Adam’s contention that Troy’s stated reasons for denying Adam’s variance application were pretextual and intended to prevent Adam from opening a mosque in the City. Thus, a factfinder could conclude that Adam’s constitutional rights were violated.

The court previously concluded that the city had violated the equal terms and substantial burden provisions of RLUIPA, and now ordered a hearing on damages for those violations. Detroit News reports on the decision.

Michigan Court Permanently Enjoins Enforcement Of Pre-Roe Abortion Law

In Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan, (MI Ct. Cl., Sept. 7, 2022), the Michigan Court of Claims issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of Michigan's pre-Roe abortion ban.  The order follows on the Court's previous preliminary injunction against enforcement. It held that enforcement of the ban would violate both the due process and equal protection clauses of the Michigan constitution. The Court rejected the argument that it should interpret the due process clause in the state Constitution to track that of the due process clause in the U.S. Constitution. The court said in part:

... Dobbs relied on a version of history that began in the 13th Century and ended in 1868, when the federal Due Process Clause was ratified. Almost a century, two world wars, a constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote, the emergence of the civil rights movement, and a sea change in the laws regarding women's status in society separate the adoption of the fourteenth amendment from the ratification of our 1963 Constitution.... A court charged with an examination of the ideas giving rise to a 1963 Constitution is not assisted by an historical analysis of a clause drafted in a far different social and legal environment. What was "deeply rooted" in history and tradition in 1868, a focal point in Dobbs, bears little resemblance to the understanding of personal freedom, particularly for woman and people of color, motivating those who drafted and ratified our 1963 Constitution. The Court therefore rejects the intervenors' claim that this Court must reflexively adhere to Dobb's conclusions about the reach of the federal Due Process Clause....

By depriving women who choose abortion the ability to exercise a fundamental right while protecting the same right for pregnant women who choose to continue their pregnancies, MCL 750.14 violates Michigan's Equal Protection clause....

By criminalizing abortion, MCL 750.14 prevents a woman who seeks to exercise a constitutional right from controlling her ability to work or to go to school, and thereby determining for herself the shape of her present and future life.

Responding to a state Court of Appeals opinion that the court of Claims previous preliminary injunction only binds the Attorney General and not independent county prosecutors, the Court ordered the Attorney General to serve a copy of the opinion and accompanying order on every county prosecuting attorney.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a statement (full text) in support of the Court's decision. Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Michigan Supreme Court Says Abortion Rights Proposal Must Go On November Ballot

In Reproductive Freedom For All v. Board of State Canvassers, (MI Sup. Ct., Sept. 8, 2022), the Michigan Supreme Court in a per curiam Order of Mandamus directed the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposed Reproductive Freedom For All state constitutional amendment for placement on the November 8 election ballot. The Board of State Canvassers had deadlocked 2-2 along party lines with those voting against approval citing a typographical problem that led to several words being run together at places in the text of the proposed amendment as set out in the petitions that were circulated. (See prior posting.) In its Order, adopted by a 5-2 vote, the Court said in part:

It is undisputed that there are sufficient signatures to warrant certification. The only challenge to the petition is in regard to whether there is sufficient space between certain words of the text of the proposed amendment. MCL 168.482(3) requires only that “[t]he full text of the amendment so proposed must follow the summary and be printed in 8-point type.” The “full text” of the amendment is present: regardless of the existence or extent of the spacing, all of the words remain and they remain in the same order, and it is not disputed that they are printed in 8-point type. In this case, the meaning of the words has not changed by the alleged insufficient spacing between them.

Chief Justice McCormack filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

[Two members of the Board of State Canvassers] would disenfranchise millions of Michiganders not because they believe the many thousands of Michiganders who signed the proposal were confused by it, but because they think they have identified a technicality that allows them to do so, a game of gotcha gone very bad. 

Justice Bernstein also filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Zahra filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

[T]he Court, under the pressure to decide the question forthwith in order to ensure timely production of the ballots, has decided to grant mandamus without oral argument. While I would prefer to engage in oral argument before deciding this issue, pressed for a ruling, I must conclude that plaintiffs have not met their burden of establishing a clear legal right to a writ of mandamus.

Justice Viviano filed a 14-page dissenting opinion, saying in part:

For well over a thousand years, we have conveyed thought and meaning by using spaces between words.... It was not always so. Ancient text employed scriptura continua, in which words were uninterrupted by word spaces.... But the objectives of reading in ancient times were different, with the focus being on memorization useful to an oral rather than a text-based culture....

If the full-text requirement is subject to an analysis that asks whether the meaning has sufficiently changed or become ambiguous enough to potentially mislead,... then presumably the determination of whether the full text is present involves at least some discretion. That is, a factual determination concerning the extent of the error and its probable effects must be made by the board. But if so, then it is hard to see how this decision can be characterized as ministerial and thus subject to mandamus.

NPR reports on the decision. 

Michigan Supreme Court To Decide Whether Abortion Rights Proposal Will Be On November Ballot

 As previously reported, backers of a proposed abortion rights amendment to the Michigan Constitution are appealing to the Michigan Supreme Court the refusal of the Board of State Canvassers to certify the proposal for the ballot.  Republicans on the Board created a deadlocked vote, contending that kerning of the text that ran some words together invalidated the petitions that were submitted. The complaint (full text) in Reproductive Freedom for All v. Board of State Canvassers, (MI Sup. Ct., filed 9/1/2022) is now available online, as are some of the amicus briefs filed in the case. Here are links to briefs from Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, from seven county Prosecuting Attorneys, and from a coalition of advocacy and religious groups. Bridge Michigan reports on these developments.

Michigan Abortion Rights Amendment Faces Possible Ballot Exclusion Because of Typographical Formatting Errors

Earlier today, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers deadlocked 2-2, along party lines, in its vote on approving for inclusion on the November ballot an abortion rights state constitutional amendment. As reported by the Detroit Free Press, while backers had obtained far more than the minimum number of petition signatures need for inclusion on the ballot, challengers focused on the formatting of the text of the proposed amendment on the petition which erroneously ran several words together so that there were no spaces between the words. The Board of State Canvassers staff report said in part:

The Michigan Constitution of 1963 requires that the “petition shall include the full text of the proposed amendment”....

The RFFA petition includes the same letters, arranged in the same order, as the petition conditionally approved at the March 23rd Board meeting... Certain portions of the petition have smaller spaces between words; the spacing between words in some instances appears similar to the spacing between letters within words. The Michigan Election Law is silent on the amount of space that must be between letters and words in a petition.

Challengers argued that because of these typographical errors, the petitions do not contain the full text of the proposed amendment.

Under MCL §168.479, a decision of the Board of State Canvassers may be challenged by a petition filed with the state Supreme Court within 7 days of the decision. The group sponsoring the amendment, Reproductive Freedom For All, has already announced that it will appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Christian Healthcare Organization Sues Over Michigan Non-Discrimination Law

Suit was filed yesterday in a Michigan federal district court by a faith-based healthcare organization contending that Michigan's employment discrimination law violates its free exercise, free speech and due process rights. The 73-page complaint (full text) in Christian Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Nessel, (WD MI, filed 8/29/2022), contends in part:

Under the guise of stopping discrimination, the law discriminates against religious organizations, requiring them to forfeit their religious character and hire people who do not share their faith. That same law also forces Christian Healthcare to prescribe cross-sex hormones and refer to patients in communications and medical records according to their stated gender identity, rather than their biological sex. All of this violates Christian Healthcare’s religious convictions. In effect, the law requires Christian Healthcare to check its religious faith at the clinic door—the very faith that motivates the clinic to open its doors to help those in need....

290. Michigan’s laws do not contain a religious exemption for religious entities like Christian Healthcare.

291. Michigan’s Employment Clause allows employers to apply to the Commission for an exemption on the basis that religion is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business or enterprise. MCL 37.2208; MDCR Rule 37.25(1)....

297. Because Christian Healthcare requires all employees to affirm and live in accordance with its Religious Statements, which prohibit same-sex relationships and expressing a transgender identity, it would need a BFOQ exemption from discrimination on the basis sexual orientation, gender identity, and religion for every one of its employees.

ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Michigan County Prosecutors Temporarily Enjoined From Enforcing Pre-Roe Abortion Ban

As reported by Bridge Michigan, a Michigan state trial court judge yesterday issued a preliminary injunction barring county prosecutors from enforcing a 1931 statute banning abortion. The injunction prevents enforcement while the constitutionality of the statute is being litigated. According to the report:

[Judge] Cunningham said the danger of harm to women and doctors if the ban were allowed to take effect “could not be more crystal clear.”

“The court finds the statute dangerous and chilling to our state's population, childbearing people and the medical professionals that care for them”....

Other Michigan courts have already barred the state Attorney General's office from enforcing the pre-Roe statute. (See prior posting.) The court yesterday postponed any further hearings until after the November elections in which a proposed state constitutional amendment on abortion rights will likely be on the Michigan ballot.

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued a statement (full text) welcoming the court's decision.

Michigan's Pre-Roe Abortion Ban May Now Be Enforceable By County Prosecutors

As previously reported, in May 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. In response, two county prosecutors and two anti-abortion organizations filed a complaint with the state Court of Appeals seeking an Order of Superintending Control that would require the state Court of Claims to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. (See prior posting.) Today in In re Jarzynka, (MI App., Aug. 1, 2022), the Michigan Court of Appeals dismissed that suit for lack of standing. It held that the anti-abortion groups have not suffered a sufficient injury by the Court of Claims decision to give them standing to challenge it.  As to the prosecuting attorneys, the Court of Appeals held that the Court of Claims injunction applies only to the state Attorney General's office and does not apply to county prosecutors. As reported by the Detroit News, this holding would seem to now allow county prosecutors to file criminal charges under the 1931 statute against abortion providers. State Attorney General Dana Nessel says that Democratic prosecuting attorneys have committed to not enforcing the 1931 ban.

UPDATE: AP reports that just hours after the Court of Appeals decision, an Oakland County judge, at the request of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, issued a temporary restraining order against prosecutors in counties with abortion providers barring enforcement of the 1931 law.  He scheduled a hearing for Wednesday.

Michigan Supreme Court: State's Public Accommodation Law Bars Sexual Orientation Discrimination

In Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, (MI Sup. Ct., July 28, 2022), the Michigan Supreme Court, in a 5-2 decision, held that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act's ban on sex discrimination on the basis of sex includes discrimination based on sexual orientation. The case was brought in the state Court of Claims by two businesses which, on religious grounds, refused to serve LGBT clients. One of the plaintiffs had refused to host a same-sex wedding at its event center. The other had refused to provide electrolysis hair-removal services to a transgender woman. The Court of Claims, bound by higher state court precedent, held that the ELCRA did not cover sexual orientation discrimination. However, lacking state court precedent on its application to transgender discrimination, the Court of Claims held that the ECLRA does ban discrimination on the basis of gender identity.  Only the holding regarding sexual orientation was appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Justice Clement's majority Supreme Court opinion said in part:

[W]e conclude that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily involves discrimination because of sex in violation of the ELCRA. In so doing, we find persuasive Bostock’s application of Title VII’s but-for standard. While we are encouraged but not bound to consider persuasive Title VII federal case law, ... we find that Bostock offers a straightforward analysis of the plain meaning of analogous statutory language and we agree with its reasoning....

Plaintiff Rouch World, along with the dissent, also criticizes this conclusion as inconsistent with the intent of the 1976 Legislature that enacted the ELCRA. It argues that the ELCRA’s legislative history demonstrates that the Legislature intentionally chose to exclude protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation, both at the time of its enactment by declining to include the specific language and repeatedly thereafter by rejecting proposed amendments that would have added the specific language. However, the legislative history of a statute is relevant to the statute’s meaning only where the statute is ambiguous.... When the statute’s language is clear, as it is here, we rely on that plain language as the best evidence of its meaning.

Judge Zahra, dissenting, said in part:

I take no issue with the merits of the policy adopted today by a majority of this Court. I also harbor no doubt that my colleagues in the majority are acting in good faith, with pure hearts and the best of intentions.

Yet ... this Court’s duty is to say what the law is, not what it thinks the law ought to be.

The majority opinion declares that “because of . . . sex” means something that nobody in 1976 thought it meant.... [T]he majority opinion also declares that phrase to encompass something that the enacting Legislature specifically and explicitly considered including but ultimately chose not to embrace.... If we are to be faithful to our constitutional mandate to say what the law is, we simply cannot pretend that the ELCRA says something that it does not say.

Justice Viviano filed a dissenting opinion which says in part:

The relevant statutory provision, MCL 37.2302(a), prohibits certain discriminatory actions taken “because of . . . sex,” among other things. Properly interpreted, this requires that the defendant maintain some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about “sex” or the other characteristics protected by the statute....

[D]iscrimination on the basis of one’s sexual orientation is not discrimination because of some prejudice, bias, animus, or belief about the male sex or the female sex.

Bridge Michigan reports on the decision.

Michigan Governor Will Refuse To Extradite For Abortion Charges

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer yesterday signed an Executive Order (full text) which provides in part:

1. The Office of the Governor will decline to assist with or effectuate the extradition of persons to or from Michigan when the charged criminal conduct is the provision of, receipt of, securing of, or assistance with reproductive health-care services, including abortion.

2. Consistent with the requirements of Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S Constitution, paragraph 1 does not apply when the person who is the subject of the request for arrest or surrender was physically present in the requesting state at the time of the commission of the alleged offense and thereafter fled from that state.

A press release from the Governor's office explains the motivation for the Executive Order:

Today, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive order refusing to extradite women who come to Michigan seeking reproductive health care. It also protects providers of legal abortion in Michigan, who will not have to fear being extradited for prosecution in another state for offering reproductive health care.

Currently, there are laws and legislative proposals across the country supported by the GOP that would make it felony for a woman to seek abortion care, and for a doctor to provide it.... Proposals also exist to punish a woman who decides to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. 

Ecclesiastical Abstention Doctrine Does Not Apply To Dispute Over Church's Form Of Governance

In Bogle v. Sewell, (MI App., May 26, 2022), a Michigan state appellate court held that the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine did not preclude the trial court from deciding whether 2011 and 2019 amendments to the bylaws of Evangel Echos Church of the Air validly changed the church from a membership-based to a directorship-based governance. The court said in part:

Whether the Church was organized on a membership basis or a directorship basis was not an ecclesiastical question—it was a corporate law question. To answer this question, the trial court needed to look no further than the Church’s Articles of Association and the MNCA. Resolving the parties’ dispute did not require the trial court to interpret any of the Church’s religious doctrine or to pass judgment on what it believed to be the form of corporate governance most in line with the Church’s discipline or values. It simply required the trial court to apply Michigan statutory law against the language of the Articles of Association

Michigan City Revises Policy On Hijab In Booking Photos

CAIR-Michigan announced yesterday that a settlement has been reached with the city of Ferndale in a suit charging the Ferndale police department with forcibly removing a Muslim woman's hijab for a booking photo after her arrest:

... Ferndale and Bowe have reached a full and satisfactory settlement of this matter that involved the city instituting new policies allowing Muslim women to maintain their hijab when a booking photo is taken and prohibiting cross-gender searches in the absence of an emergency as well as a monetary settlement. 

6th Circuit En Banc Dismisses Mask Mandate Challenge As Moot

In Resurrection School v. Hertel, (6 Cir., May 25, 2022), an en banc panel of the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held by a vote of 13-1-3 that a free exercise challenge to Michigan's COVID mask mandate for school children is moot. The mandate is no longer in effect. The suit was brought by a private religious school and two parents of school children. One judge concluded that the preliminary injunction appeal moot, but the proceedings for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are not. The majority said in part:

For all the reasons recited above—the changed circumstances since the State first imposed its mask mandate, the substantially developed caselaw, the lack of gamesmanship on the State’s part—we see no reasonable possibility that the State will impose a new mask mandate with roughly the same exceptions as the one originally at issue here. This claim is moot—indeed palpably so.

Judge Bush in a 31-page dissent joined by two other judges said in part:

[T]he majority’s decision to declare the entire case against MDHHS moot—rather than simply deciding the preliminary-injunction appeal—has stripped us of a valuable opportunity to clarify the law of our circuit. What the majority should have done, instead, is rule solely on the interlocutory order before us.

Fox2 Detroit reports on the decision.

Certiorari Denied In Synagogue Picketers Case

On May 16, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review in Gerber v. Herskovitz, (Docket No, 21-1263, certiorari denied, 5/16/2022) (Order List). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a suit by synagogue members against anti-Israel pickets who have picketed services at the Beth Israel Synagogue in Ann Arbor, Michigan every week since 2003. (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.

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.