Suit Challenges Michigan's Reproductive Freedom Amendment on Federal Constitutional Grounds

In November 2022, Michigan voters passed a state constitutional amendment providing a right to reproductive freedom. Yesterday a group of plaintiffs filed suit in a Michigan federal district court contending that the state constitutional amendment violates the 1st and 14th Amendments to the federal Constitution, as well as the Constitution's Guarantee Clause. Among the 16 plaintiffs is "Jane Roe, a fictitious name on behalf of preborn babies." The complaint (full text) in Right to Life of Michigan v. Whitmer, (WD MI, filed 11/8/2023), alleges in part:

By reason of Article I, § 28 of the Michigan Constitution ..., Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs, specifically including women, and in particular pregnant women; preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals; preborn human beings with disabilities; partially born human beings; and human beings born following a failed abortion of the equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment....

 Article I, § 28 permits individuals, including public school officials, medical professionals, and others, to aid or assist a minor child with procuring an abortion, obtaining contraception, obtaining “gender reassignment” medication or procedures, and becoming sterilized without parental knowledge or consent and with impunity in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

... Article I, § 28 permits adults to engage in sexual acts with minors so long as the minor consents, thereby undermining the right of parents to direct the upbringing of their children in violation of Plaintiffs’ parental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment....

Article I, § 28 nullifies all statutory protection provided to physicians and other medical professionals ... who object to abortion, contraception, “gender reassignment” medication/procedures, sterilization, puberty blockers, and other harmful medical procedures related to “reproduction” on moral and religious grounds in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs....

Article I, § 28 deprives preborn human beings, including Jane Roe and similarly situated individuals, preborn human beings with disabilities, partially born human beings, and human beings born following a failed abortion of the right to life and liberty without due process of law....

Article I, § 28, which was passed pursuant to the process of amending the Michigan Constitution, nullifies the legitimate authority of a coordinate branch of government, the Legislative Branch, by prohibiting it from regulating or governing in a broad area of the law (“reproduction”) that has historically been within its legitimate domain in violation of the Guarantee Clause of the United States Constitution....

Right To Life Michigan issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. Detroit News reports on the lawsuit.  [Thanks to Scott Mange and Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Ohioans Vote On Reproductive Rights Amendment

In Ohio today, voters are casting ballots on State Issue 1 that, if approved will add the following to the Ohio Constitution:

Article I, Section 22. The Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety

A. Every individual has a right to make and carry out one’s own reproductive decisions, including but not limited to decisions on:
1. contraception;
2. fertility treatment;
3. continuing one’s own pregnancy;
4. miscarriage care; and
5. abortion.

B. The State shall not, directly or indirectly, burden, penalize, prohibit, interfere with, or discriminate against either:

1. An individual's voluntary exercise of this right or

2. A person or entity that assists an individual exercising this right,

unless the State demonstrates that it is using the least restrictive means to advance the individual's health in accordance with widely accepted and evidence-based standards of care.

However, abortion may be prohibited after fetal viability. But in no case may such an abortion be prohibited if in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient’s treating physician it is necessary to protect the pregnant patient’s life or health.

C. As used in this Section:

1. “Fetal viability” means “the point in a pregnancy when, in the professional judgment of the pregnant patient's treating physician, the fetus has a significant likelihood of survival outside the uterus with reasonable measures. This is determined on a case-by-case basis.”

2. “State” includes any governmental entity and any political subdivision.

D. This Section is self-executing.

Ballotpedia has additional information on the proposed amendment. Live election results will be available here.

UPDATE: With 84% of the precincts reporting, the measure has passed 55.6% to 44.4%.

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.

Oklahoma AG Sues State's Charter School Board Over Its Approval of Religious Charter School

Last week Oklahoma's Attorney General filed suit against the Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board challenging its approval of the Catholic Archdiocese's application for a state-funded online religious charter school. (See prior related posting.) The ACLU and Americans United had previously filed suit in a state trial court challenging the Board's action. The Attorney General's action was filed directly with the Oklahoma Supreme Court. As reported by PBS News, the AG's action came after 3 members of the Board signed a contract this week for the school. In Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Sup. Ct., filed 10/20/2023), the Attorney General filed an Application to Assume Original Jurisdiction and Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Judgment, as well as a Brief in Support (full text) of its motions. The brief reads in part:

Make no mistake, if the Catholic Church were permitted to have a public virtual charter school, a reckoning will follow in which this State will be faced with the unprecedented quandary of processing requests to directly fund all petitioning sectarian groups....  For example, this reckoning will require the State to permit extreme sects of the Muslim faith to establish a taxpayer funded public charter school teaching Sharia Law. Consequently, absent the intervention of this Court, the Board members’ shortsighted votes in violation of their oath of office and the law will pave the way for a proliferation of the direct public funding of religious schools whose tenets are diametrically opposed by most Oklahomans.

As to the merits, this case is simple: Oklahoma’s Constitution disallows sectarian control of its public schools and the support of sectarian practices—indirect or otherwise....

The brief also asserted that the Board's action violates the 1st Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Oklahoma Attorney General issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Ban on California's Publicly Funded Home School Program Covering Faith-Based Instruction Challenged

California's public charter school program includes schools that fund independent study home schooling. Parents may use state funds for secular educational materials, but not for religious materials.  A school staff member must approve materials purchased with state funds and must periodically review work samples to assure that state educational standards are met. California Constitution Art. IX, Sec. 8 prohibits the teaching of religious doctrine in public schools, and the California Education Code requires charter schools to be non-sectarian. Suit was filed this week in a California federal district court seeking an injunction that will allow parents to spend instructional funds for faith-based materials and will require schools to accept work samples that derive from a faith-based curriculum.  The complaint (full text) in Woolard v. Thurmond, (ED CA, filed 10/11/2023), alleges that applying state law to prevent disbursement of instructional funds for faith-based materials and refusal to accept faith-based work samples violates plaintiffs Free Exercise and Free Speech rights. First Liberty Institute issued a press release announcing the filling of the lawsuit.

11th Circuit: Buddhist Organization Prevails Under Alabama State Constitution in Zoning Fight

In Thai Meditation Association of Alabama, Inc. v. City of Mobile, Alabama,(11th Cir., Oct. 2, 2023), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals partly reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of the city of Mobile at the district court level.  At issue is Mobile's denial zoning approval for a Buddhist organization to use a house in a residential district for religious purposes. The appeals court held that neither party is entitled to summary judgment under RLUIPA because of factual disputes.  It held that the district court correctly dismissed plaintiff's Free Exercise claim because the zoning designation process is neutral and generally applicable. It held however, that the Buddhist organization is entitled to an injunction under the Alabama Religious Freedom Amendment to the state constitution, saying in part:

To begin, we have never held that neighborhood character or zoning are compelling government interests sufficient to justify abridging core constitutional rights....  ... [A]mici also note that generalized, high-level invocations of “zoning” are often used to target minority faith’s land use applications.... These concerns underscore why it is necessary to hold government entities to their burden to state and support a well-defined government interest. 

Here, the City has failed to carry its burden to demonstrate a compelling government interest. The generalized invocations of neighborhood character and zoning fail as a matter of law under our precedents. The City’s invocation of traffic concerns fare slightly better..., but they are unsubstantiated in the record....

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Montana's Ban on Transgender Treatments for Minors

 In Van Garderen v. State of Montana, (MT Dist. Ct., Sept. 27, 2023), a Montana trial court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of SB 99, the state's ban on surgical and hormonal treatments for minors suffering from gender dysphoria.  It concluded that the law likely violates the Equal Protection and Privacy provisions of the Montana Constitution.  The court said in part:

The Court finds that SB 99 likely violates Montana's Equal Protection Clause because it classifies based on transgender status—making it a sex-based classification—and because it infringes on fundamental rights, subjecting it to strict scrutiny. The Court finds that SB 99 likely does not survive strict scrutiny because it does not serve its purported compelling governmental interest of protecting minor Montanans from pressure to receive harmful medical treatments. Alternatively, the Court finds that SB 99 is unlikely to survive any level of constitutional review. The Court also finds that SB 99 likely violates Plaintiffs’ right to privacy under Montana’s Constitution because the Court does not find that the treatments proscribed by SB 99 constituted “medically-acknowledged, bonafide health risk[s][,]” and because, again, SB 99 likely cannot survive strict scrutiny.....

LawDork reports at greater length on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.] 

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds Most of Ballot Board's Description of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In State ex. rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct., Sept. 19, 2023), the Ohio Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion concurred in fully by Justice Fischer and (with a short opinion) by Donnelly, upheld most of the ballot language drafted by the Ohio Ballot Board to describe a Reproductive Freedom initiative that will be on the November ballot.  The Board substituted its description for the proponent's request that the full text of the amendment appear on the ballot. (See prior related posting.) The majority of the Court disapproved only the Ballot Board's substitution of "citizens of the State of Ohio" for the term "State" used in the proposed amendment.  One of the Ballot Board's changes approved by the majority was its substitution of the term "unborn child" for the term "fetus" in the text of the proposed amendment.  The majority said in part:

According to relators, “[o]ne’s judgment about the developmental stage at which the ethical status of ‘unborn child’ attaches has obvious implications for whether and how one believes abortion should be regulated.” Relators argue that the terms “fetus” or “fetal viability,” which appear in the proposed amendment’s text, are scientifically accurate and do not carry the same moral judgment as “unborn child.”

We reject relators’ argument. Importantly, relators do not argue that the term “unborn child” is factually inaccurate. To the contrary, their argument asserts that “unborn child” is a divisive term that elicits a moral judgment whereas the terms “fetus” and “fetal viability” are more neutral and scientific. But this argument does not establish that the ballot board’s language constitutes improper persuasion.

Justice Stewart and Justice Brunner each filed an opinion finding all of the Ballot Board's language unacceptable. Justice Brunner said in part:

A majority of respondent Ohio Ballot Board’s members ... obfuscated the actual language of the proposed state constitutional amendment by substituting their own language and creating out of whole cloth a veil of deceit and bias in their desire to impose their views on Ohio voters about what they think is the substance of the proposed amendment. And they did this by completely recrafting simple and straightforward amendment language into a version that contains more words than the amendment itself. The evidence in the record makes clear that it was their intent to use their positions on the board to influence the outcome of the election with the ballot language the board certified for the proposed amendment.

Justice Deters, in an opinion concurred in by Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice DeWine, concluded that they would have upheld all of the Ballot Board's language, saying that it "does not mislead, deceive, or defraud voters."

NBC News reports on the decision.

Florida Supreme Court Hears Arguments On 15-Week Abortion Ban

On Friday the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida v. State of Florida, (FL Sup. Ct., 9/8/2-23). At issue in the case is a state constitutional challenge to Florida's 15-week abortion ban.  The Florida Supreme Court has links to all the pleadings and briefs in the case.

Reproductive Rights Proponents Sue Ohio Ballot Board Over Ballot Language

On Monday, a suit seeking a writ of mandamus was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court by backers of Issue 1, "Right to Reproductive Freedom with Protections for Health and Safety." The suit challenges the Ohio Ballot Board's revised language describing the state constitutional amendment that will be on the November ballot in the state. (See prior posting.) Instead of placing the text of the proposed Amendment on ballots, the Ballot Board drafted new language which plaintiffs say misrepresents the proposed amendment. The complaint (full text) in State of Ohio ex rel. Ohioans United for Reproductive Rights v. Ohio Ballot Board, (OH Sup. Ct. filed 8/28/2023), alleges in part:

Article XVI of the Ohio Constitution requires the Ohio Ballot Board to prescribe ballot language for the Amendment that “properly identif[ies] the substance of the proposal to be voted upon” and does not “mislead, deceive, or defraud” voters. The language the Ballot Board adopted at its August 24, 2023, meeting flouts those requirements and aims improperly to mislead Ohioans and persuade them to oppose the Amendment. Accordingly, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt the full text of the Amendment as the ballot language. That remedy is appropriate because the Ballot Board’s prescribed language is irreparably flawed. In the alternative, Relators request that the Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Ballot Board to reconvene and adopt ballot language that properly and lawfully describes the Amendment, correcting the numerous defects in the existing language....

CBS News reports on the lawsuit.

South Carolina Supreme Court Upholds Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina, (SC Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2023), the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the 2023 version of South Carolina's heartbeat abortion ban enacted in response to an earlier decision by the same court striking down an earlier version of the law. The court said in part:

[T]he legislature has found that the State has a compelling interest in protecting the lives of unborn children. That finding is indisputable and one we must respect. The legislature has further determined, after vigorous debate and compromise, that its interest in protecting the unborn becomes actionable upon the detection of a fetal heartbeat via ultrasound by qualified medical personnel. It would be a rogue imposition of will by the judiciary for us to say that the legislature's determination is unreasonable as a matter of law—particularly on the record before us and in the specific context of a claim arising under the privacy provision in article I, section 10 of our state constitution.

As a result, our judicial role in this facial challenge to the 2023 Act has come to an end. The judiciary's role is to exercise our judgment as to whether the legislative weighing of competing interests was within the range of possible, reasonable choices rationally related to promoting the legislature's legitimate interests. Having concluded that it was, we consequently defer to the legislature's gauging of the profound, competing interests at stake. Accordingly, we vacate the preliminary injunction and hold the 2023 Act is constitutional.

Justice Few filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

Ultimately, the General Assembly did not attempt to simply re-enact the same legislation, as Planned Parenthood argues. Rather, it amended the 2021 Act in what appears to be a sincere attempt to comply with the narrowest reading of this Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood I. The question now before the Court, therefore, is whether the attempt was successful; do the changes the General Assembly made from the 2021 Act to the 2023 Act make it possible for this Court to find the 2023 Act constitutional under article I, section 10, despite the fact the threshold for banning most abortions did not change....

When this Court evaluated the constitutionality of the 2021 Act, we balanced the State's interest in protecting unborn life against the statutory countervailing interest of "informed choice" and the privacy interests arising from article I, section 10. As there is no "informed choice" provision in the 2023 Act, the State's interest in protecting unborn life is now balanced against only the constitutional privacy interests.

Chief Justice Beatty filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

In my view, because the material terms of the 2023 Act have not changed from the 2021 Act, logic and respect for the doctrine of stare decisis dictate that the 2023 Act should likewise be declared unconstitutional.

 AP reports on the decision.

Near-Final Tally of Ohio Issue 1

With over 99% of the votes now counted, Ohio's Issue 1 failed on Tuesday by a vote of 57.01% against and 42.99% in favor. (Results from Secretary of State.) Issue 1 would have made it more difficult for voters to amend the Ohio Constitution, among other things by raising the required popular vote to 60% instead of the current majority.  The immediate aim of proponents of Issue 1 was to make it more difficult to pass a Reproductive Rights amendment that will be on the November ballot.

Trial Court Expands Exemptions in Texas Abortion Law; Appeal Suspends Ruling

In Zurawski v. State of Texas, (TX Dist. Ct., Aug. 4, 2023), a Texas state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Texas' abortion ban in more situations than the limited exceptions in the statute.  The court restrained enforcement against any physician who provides abortions where the pregnant person has a complication that poses a risk of infection or makes continuing a pregnancy unsafe, has a condition exacerbated by pregnancy that cannot be effectively treated during pregnancy or where the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy.

The court said in part:

The Court further finds that any official’s enforcement of Texas’s abortion bans as applied to a pregnant person with an emergent medical condition for whom an abortion would prevent or alleviate a risk of death or risk to their health (including their fertility) would be inconsistent with the rights afforded to pregnant people under Article I, §§ 3, 3a, and/or 19 of the Texas Constitution and therefore would be ultra vires.

The state immediately filed a Notice of Accelerated Interlocutory Appeal which apparently has the effect under Texas law of suspending the trial court's temporary injunction pending action by the state Supreme Court. (Attorney General's press release.)  NPR reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Oklahoma's Approval of Catholic Charter School

Suit was filed yesterday in an Oklahoma state trial court challenging the decision of the state's Virtual Charter School Board to approve a Catholic-sponsored charter school that will be funded by the state. The 70-page complaint (full text) in OKPLAC, Inc. v. Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, (OK Dist. Ct., filed 7/31/2023) alleges that the school's application indicated that the school's operation would violate numerous provisions of the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and regulations of the Virtual Charter School Board. The complaint alleges in part:

St. Isidore submitted notarized statements that it would comply with antidiscrimination and other legal requirements only “to the extent required by law, including . . . religious exemptions . . . with priority given to the Catholic Church’s understanding of itself and its rights and obligations pursuant to the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”...

Because St. Isidore’s program requires students to submit to instruction in particular religious tenets, it is not actually open to children of all faiths and is instead discriminatory based on religion....

St. Isidore also will discriminate among prospective or enrolled students based on sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy outside of marriage, and sexual activity outside of marriage....

The Charter Schools Act requires charter schools to be “nonsectarian in [their] programs . . . and all other operations.”...

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

Suit Challenges Ohio Reproductive Freedom Amendment Ballot Issue

 A legal action was filed Friday in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to disqualify from the November ballot a proposed Reproductive Freedom amendment to the state constitution which has been certified for inclusion on the ballot by the state Secretary of State. The complaint (full text) in Giroux v. Committee Representing Petitioners, (OH Sup. Ct., filed 7/28/2023) contends that the initiative petitions failed to comply with the legal requirement to include the text of existing statutes that would be implicitly repealed by the amendment if it is adopted. Cincinnati Enquirer reports on the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Missouri Supreme Court Orders Steps to Allow Reproductive Rights Initiative Petitions to Be Circulated

In State of Missouri ex rel. Dr. Anna Fitz-James v. Bailey, (MO Sup. Ct., July 20, 2023), the Missouri Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's issuance of a writ of mandamus requiring the state Attorney General to approve the State Auditor's fiscal note summaries to eleven Reproductive Rights initiative petitions. That approval is necessary so that the Secretary of State can certify the ballot language and proponents can begin to circulate the petitions for signatures. (Full text of petitions [scroll to No. 2024-77 through 2024-87]). AP reports on the case. State Attorney General Andrew Bailey-- a gubernatorial appointee in Missouri-- contended that the Auditor's conclusion that the proposed constitutional amendments would have no fiscal impact were inaccurate.  Bailey, an abortion opponent, contended that. if approved by voters, the state could lose $12.5 billion in Medicaid funds and $51 billion in future tax revenues because of fewer births. This earlier report by the Missouri Independent has additional background.

 In its opinion, the Missouri Supreme Court said in part:

The Attorney General’s narrow authority to approve the “legal content and form” of the fiscal note summaries cannot be used as a means of usurping the Auditor’s broader authority to assess the fiscal impact of the proposals and report that impact in a fiscal note and fiscal note summary....

The Attorney General, nevertheless, characterizes his claim as challenging the “legal content and form” of the fiscal notes and their summaries because he contends they use language that is argumentative or likely to prejudice readers in favor of the proposed measure.... [H]e claims the content of the notes is likely to prejudice voters in favor of the proposals by underestimating the fiscal impact. And, because he believes the fiscal notes understate the costs to state and local governments, the Attorney General claims the summaries inevitably do so as well. The Attorney General has no authority under section 116.175 to refuse to approve fiscal note summaries on such grounds....

For more than 40 years, this Court has noted “that procedures designed to effectuate [the rights of initiative and referendum] should be liberally construed to avail voters with every opportunity to exercise these rights” and that “[t]he ability of voters to get before their fellow voters issues they deem significant should not be thwarted in preference for technical formalities.”... If the Attorney General had complied with his duty ..., the Secretary would have certified the official ballot titles for Fitz-James’s initiative petitions nearly 100 days ago.

Iowa Trial Court Temporarily Enjoins State's New Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Reynolds, (IA Dist. Ct., July 17, 2023), an Iowa state trial court issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of Iowa's new heartbeat abortion ban. The court held that a decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in 2022 left the federal undue burden test as the controlling test in Iowa abortion cases. The trial court said in part:

When the undue burden standard is applied, it is readily apparent that the Petitioners are likely to succeed on their claim that H.F.732 violates the Due Process clause, article I, section 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

The court's decision was complicated by the fact that in 2018, Iowa passed a similar heartbeat law which was enjoined by a trial court. That injunction remained in place when last month the Iowa Supreme Court deadlocked 3-3 in an appeal of that decision. In yesterday's decision by the trial court, the temporary injunction had one exception. The court said:

The court believes it must follow current Iowa Supreme Court precedent and preserve the status quo ante while this litigation and adversarial presentation which our Supreme Court has invited moves forward. 

However, as the Governor has now signed H.F. 732 into law, the court should except from that status quo, section 2, paragraph 5 of H.F. 732, directing the Iowa Board of Medicine to adopt rules pursuant to Chapter 17A. Should the injunction entered today ultimately be dissolved, it would only benefit all involved, patients and providers alike, to have rules in place to administer the law.

Iowa ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Indiana Supreme Court Rejects Facial Challenge to State's Abortion Law

In Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc., (IN Sup. Ct., June 30, 2023), the Indiana Supreme Court rejected a facial challenge under the Indiana Constitution to Indiana's 2022 abortion law. The law bans abortions except when necessary to save a woman’s life or to prevent a serious health risk, or during limited time periods when there is a lethal fetal anomaly or when the pregnancy results from rape or incest. Interpreting the broad language of Art. I, Sec, 1 of the Indiana Constitution, the court said in part: 

... Article 1, Section 1 protects a woman’s right to an abortion that is necessary to protect her life or to protect her from a serious health risk. Yet, this holding does not support Plaintiffs’ claim for a preliminary injunction. That is because they framed their claim as a facial challenge to the entire statute in all conceivable circumstances rather than an as-applied challenge to the law’s application in any particular set of circumstances where a pregnancy endangers a woman’s life or health. So this appeal does not present an opportunity to establish the precise contours of a constitutionally required life or health exception and the extent to which that exception may be broader than the current statutory exceptions....

We do not diminish a woman’s interest in terminating a pregnancy because, for starters, it is a privately held interest—informed by privately held considerations. Moreover, we recognize that many women view the ability to obtain an abortion as an exercise of their bodily autonomy. Yet, and however compelling that interest is, it does not follow that it is constitutionally protected in all circumstances....

In sum, our State’s history and traditions, as reflected in our Court’s precedents, indicate that the common understanding of Section 1 among those who framed and ratified it was that it generally left the General Assembly with broad legislative discretion to limit abortion....

Justice Slaughter filed an opinion concurring only in the judgment, saying in part:

For the first time in our state’s history, the Court holds that the Indiana Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court’s unprecedented conclusion is both momentous and unnecessary on this record. The only issue before us is the propriety of the trial court’s preliminary injunction. That narrow issue can, and thus should, be resolved without reaching any of the constitutional questions upon which the Court opines gratuitously...

Justice Goff filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, saying in part:

To be sure, Senate Bill 1 itself recognizes a woman’s liberty interest, if only in part, by allowing time-limited exceptions for victims of rape and incest and pregnancies involving a lethal fetal anomaly. But by holding that the legislature retains the discretion “to prohibit abortions which are unnecessary to protect a woman’s life or health,” the Court puts these exceptions at risk, effectively inviting the legislature to repeal even the most basic protections to a woman’s liberty....

It seems to me that reproductive liberty is too personal and too important for the General Assembly to set at naught when weighed in the balance against the protection of fetal life.

Indy Star reports on the decision.

Suit Seeks Historic Preservation Funds for Churches

Two historic churches have filed suit in a New Jersey federal district court challenging Morris County's exclusion of properties currently used for religious purposes from receiving Historic Preservation funds from the county. Plaintiffs contend that recent U.S. Supreme Court cases invalidate an earlier state Supreme Court decision barring churches from participation in such funding programs. The complaint (full text) in Mendham Methodist Church v. Morris County, New Jersey, (D NJ, filed 4/28/2023), alleges in part:

In 2018 ... the New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that the Religious Aid Clause of the New Jersey Constitution bars state and local governments from providing grants to preserve the architecture of historic churches. Freedom From Religion Found. v. Morris Cnty. Bd. of Chosen Freeholders ...

This is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religion: States and local governments that choose to provide a generally available public benefit—such as historic preservation grants—cannot exclude an otherwise-qualified applicant solely because the applicant happens to be a house of worship. See Carson v. Makin, 142 S. Ct. 1987, 1996 (2022).... ;Espinoza v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue...., 140 S. Ct. 2246, 2262 (2020)....

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

North Dakota Supreme Court: State Constitution Protects Right to Abortion to Save Life or Health of Mother

In Wrigley v. Romanick, (ND Sup. Ct., March 16, 2023), the North Dakota Supreme Court refused to vacate a trial court's preliminary injunction that barred enforcement of the state's 2007 abortion ban whose effectiveness was to be triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade. In particular, the court concluded that the absence of an exception in the abortion ban for preserving the health of the mother was a critical defect in the law.  The court said in part:

The North Dakota Constitution explicitly provides all citizens of North Dakota the right of enjoying and defending life and pursuing and obtaining safety. These rights implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health....

Fundamental rights are those which are deeply rooted in history and tradition and are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.... North Dakota’s history and traditions, as well as the plain language of its Constitution, establish that the right of a woman to receive an abortion to preserve her life or health was implicit in North Dakota’s concept of ordered liberty before, during, and at the time of statehood....

Justice Tufte filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

At this time we consider only the preliminary injunction, and we need not decide the constitutionally necessary scope of any health exception.

Justice McEvers, joined by Justice Crothers and Judge Narum, filed an opinion concurring specially, and saying in part:

I write separately to explain how and why the rights protected under the North Dakota Constitution may be broader than those protected under the United States Constitution.

NPR reports on the decision.