Oklahoma AG Withdraws Opinion Permitting Sectarian Charter Schools

As previously reported, last December Oklahoma Attorney General John M. O'Connor issued Attorney General Opinion 2022-7 concluding that the ban in Oklahoma law on publicly funded charter schools being sectarian or religiously affiliated is unconstitutional. On Feb. 23, current state Attorney General Gentner Drummond withdrew that Opinion issued by his predecessor.  In a letter to the Executive Director of the Statewide Virtual Charter School Board (full text) explaining his action, the AG said in part:

Without binding precedent clearly addressing whether charter schools are state actors, this office is not currently comfortable advising your board members to violate the Oklahoma Constitution's clear directive: "Provisions shall be made for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools, which shall be open to all the children of the state and free from sectarian control...." Okla. Const. art I, §5 (emphasis added). Likewise, without clear precedent, this office is not comfortable advising you to violate the Legislature's clear directive that "[a] charter school shall be nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies, employment practices, and all other operations." 70 O.S. §3-136(A)(2) (emphasis added).

Noting that Opinion 2022-7 was issued in anticipation of a Charter School application by St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, Drummond's letter pointed out:

[A]pproval of the SISCVS application will create a slippery slope. While many Oklahomans undoubtedly support charter schools sponsored by various Christian faiths, I doubt most Oklahomans would want their tax dollars to fund a religious school whose tenets are diametrically opposed to their own faith. Unfortunately, the approval of a charter school by one faith will compel the approval of charter schools by all faiths, even those most Oklahomans would consider reprehensible and unworthy of public funding. Consequently, I urge your board members to use caution in reviewing the SISCVS application.

Suit By Clergy Challenges Missouri Abortion Bans

Suit was filed this week in a Missouri state trial court by 13 clergy from several Christian denominations, as well as from Unitarian Universalist and Jewish traditions challenging a series of Missouri abortion restrictions and bans as violating the state constitution's prohibition on favoring any religion and its protection of free exercise of religion.  The 83-page complaint (full text) in Blackmon v. State of Missouri, (MO Cir. Ct., filed 1/19/2023), alleges in part:

8. This open invocation of religion in enacting H.B. 126 marked a departure from earlier legislative efforts to restrict abortion, when the sponsors claimed that their intent was to protect Missouri women. The legislative debate over those provisions reveals that, as with H.B. 126, the true purpose and effect of these laws was to enshrine certain religious beliefs in law. In enacting S.B. 5, for example, legislators spoke repeatedly of their intent to protect “innocent life,” could point as justification for the law only to biased investigations by the Senate “Sanctity of Life” Committee, and ignored the testimony of clergy who warned that targeting providers to limit abortion access impermissibly imposed one religious view on everyone else....

10. Collectively, Plaintiffs, like other clergy and faith communities all across this State, have through their work providing care, counseling, teaching, and preaching, spent decades countering the false but all too common assertion that faith and abortion access are incompatible. Their beliefs and lived experiences stand in stark contrast to the religious dictates that the Total Abortion Ban, Gestational Age Bans, Reason Ban, 72-Hour Delay, Same-Physician Requirement, Medication Abortion Restrictions, and Concurrent Original Jurisdiction Provision (collectively, the “Challenged Provisions”) impose on all Missourians.

NPR reports on the lawsuit. 

Idaho Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Ban

 In Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. State of Idaho, (ID Sup. Ct., Jan. 5, 2023), the Idaho Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision upheld three Idaho statutes banning abortions.  The majority summarized its decision in part as follows:

The Idaho Constitution does not contain an explicit right to abortion. Nevertheless, Petitioners argue that certain provisions implicitly enshrine abortion as a right entitled to heightened protection from the legislature’s broad power to regulate conduct.....

For the reasons discussed below, we cannot read a fundamental right to abortion into the text of the Idaho Constitution. 

The Inalienable Rights Clause in Article I, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, which lists the rights to life, liberty, and property, provides the textual basis for the recognition of implicit fundamental rights. Indeed, Article I, section 21, while not purporting to be a repository of implicit rights, provides that the listing of rights in the Idaho Constitution “shall not be construed to impair or deny other rights retained by the people.” The Inalienable Rights Clause was framed at Idaho’s constitutional convention in 1889 and ratified by the people of Idaho later that same year. Thus, for us to read a fundamental right into the Idaho Constitution, we must examine whether the alleged right is so “deeply rooted” in the traditions and history of Idaho at the time of statehood that we can fairly conclude that the framers and adopters of the Inalienable Rights Clause intended to implicitly protect that right.

When we apply that test to this dispute, there simply is no support for a conclusion that aright to abortion was “deeply rooted” at the time the Inalienable Rights Clause was adopted....

Importantly, nothing about this decision prevents the voters of Idaho from answering the deeply moral and  political question of abortion at the polls....

Additionally, as explained below, we conclude that the Total Abortion Ban, 6-Week Ban, and Civil Liability Law each pass the familiar test for determining the constitutionality of most legislation: “rational-basis” review. Under that form of review, each of these laws is constitutional because it is rationally related to the government’s legitimate interest in protecting prenatal fetal life at all stages of development, and in protecting the health and safety of the mother.

Justice Zahn and Justice Stegner each filed a dissenting opinion. [Thanks to Dusty Hoesly for the lead.]

South Carolina Supreme Court Invalidates Fetal Heartbeat Abortion Ban

In Planned Parenthood South Atlantic v. State of South Carolina, (SC Sup. Ct., Jan. 5, 2023), the South Carolina Supreme Court in a 3-2 decision held that the state's Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act violates a woman's right to privacy protected by Art. I, Sec. 10 of the South Carolina Constitution. Each Justice wrote a separate opinion in the case. The opinions span 147 pages.  Justice Hearn, holding the law unconstitutional, said in part:

We hold that the decision to terminate a pregnancy rests upon the utmost personal and private considerations imaginable, and implicates a woman's right to privacy. While this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the State's interest in protecting unborn life, this Act, which severely limits—and in many instances completely forecloses—abortion, is an unreasonable restriction upon a woman's right to privacy and is therefore unconstitutional....

The State unquestionably has the authority to limit the right of privacy that protects women from state interference with her decision, but any such limitation must be reasonable and it must be meaningful in that the time frames imposed must afford a woman sufficient time to determine she is pregnant and to take reasonable steps to terminate that pregnancy. Six weeks is, quite simply, not a reasonable period of time for these two things to occur, and therefore the Act violates our state Constitution's prohibition against unreasonable invasions of privacy.

Chief Justice Beatty concurred in a separate opinion, saying in part:

Although our determination turns on the right to privacy, I believe the Act is also void ab initio and denies state constitutional rights to equal protection, procedural due process, and substantive due process. Therefore, the Act violates our state constitution beyond a reasonable doubt. For the foregoing reasons, I concur with Justice Hearn's lead opinion regarding the right to privacy, and I write separately to address all of Petitioners' issues because our decision today will likely not be the final resolution of the quandary....

When life begins is a theoretical and religious question upon which there is no universal agreement among various religious faiths. In fact, because there are differing views on abortion and when life begins among religious faiths, challenges are already being made to some abortion laws on the basis they violate religious freedom by elevating one faith's views over the views of others. The question of when life begins is distinguishable from the constitutional questions raised here regarding whether a woman has the right to make her own medical decisions regarding her reproductive health (in consultation with her medical provider and based on scientific evidence). At its core, the question the Court faces today is can the government—by force of law—force a woman to give birth without her consent? As will be discussed, for a reasonable period of time, a woman, rather than the government, retains this important right to choose whether to become a mother.

Justice Few filed an opinion concurring only in the result, saying in part:

Political questions surrounding abortion have produced as much impassioned disagreement as any issue of our time. When those political questions intersect with questions of law, advocates on both sides of the political questions seem to believe that the more fervently they hold their political views, the more likely those views will become someone else's legal views. We have been asked in this case to ignore well-established principles of law in order to uphold the Fetal Heartbeat Act, and to create new and novel principles of law to strike down the Act. The parties who made these requests derive their positions not from sound legal reasoning, but from fervent political advocacy. These well-intentioned parties act on the basis of their politics. The Court must act on the basis of law. The article I, section 10 prohibition on "unreasonable invasions of privacy" is a principle of law. The six-week ban in the Fetal Heartbeat Act violates the provision because—as a matter of law—it is an unreasonable intrusion into a pregnant woman's right of privacy. The Fetal Heartbeat Act is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Justice Kittredge filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Petitioners' due process claim fails. Abortion is not "deeply rooted" in our state's history, and it could not be reasonably suggested that abortion is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty." To the contrary, it is the regulation and restriction of abortion that is deeply rooted in our state's history....

Justice Few and I have a fundamental difference of opinion on the reach and meaning of the state constitutional privacy provision. Justice Few views the privacy provision expansively; I view the privacy provision in line with its understood meaning at the time it was adopted, along with caselaw interpreting the provision. Yet Justice Few and I agree on a person's general privacy interest in his or her medical autonomy. It is the source of that privacy interest where we part company. Justice Few finds the source of the privacy interest in article I, section 10—the privacy provision. I believe this privacy interest in healthcare decisions is embedded in the due process concept of liberty from our nation's and state's foundings. That is why I find the source of that interest in article I, section 3—due process. This position aligns with my view that the most basic forms of privacy arise from natural law....

Justice James filed a dissenting opinion, agreeing in part with Justice Kittredge, saying in part:

Like Justice Kittredge, I would uphold the Act. However, I disagree with Justice Kittredge on one point: I would hold the privacy provision in article I, section 10 provides citizens with heightened Fourth Amendment protections, especially protection from unreasonable law enforcement use of electronic devices to search and seize information and communications. It goes no further.

CNN reports on the decision.

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Says No State Constitutional Right to Physician Assisted Suicide

In Kligler v. Attorney General, (MA Sup. Jud. Ct., Dec. 19, 2022), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts state constitution does not protect a right to physician-assisted suicide.  The court said in part:

[G]iven our long-standing opposition to suicide in all its forms, and the absence of modern precedent supporting an affirmative right to medical intervention that causes death, we cannot conclude that physician-assisted suicide ranks among those fundamental rights protected by the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Thus, application of the law of manslaughter to physician-assisted suicide would not impinge on an individual's right to substantive due process....

Application of the law of manslaughter to physician-assisted suicide passes constitutional muster because the law is reasonably related to the State's legitimate interests in preserving life; preventing suicide; protecting the integrity of the medical profession; ensuring that all end-of-life decisions are informed, voluntary, and rational; and "protecting vulnerable people from indifference, prejudice, and psychological and financial pressure to end their lives."

Justice Cypher filed a concurring opinion, saying in part:

I concur with the court that the plaintiffs' proposed physician-assisted suicide schema is, as a matter of right, too procedurally complex for us to adopt whole cloth..... In addition, I fully support the court's thoughtful and timely primer on substantive due process, which preserves the comprehensive approach as the proper test for identifying fundamental rights under our State Constitution.... I therefore concur in the judgment. 

However, based on the strength of our existing case law concerning end-of-life patient autonomy, in conjunction with current palliative treatments that are commensurate with physician-assisted suicide, I do "not foreclose the possibility that some applications" of our criminal statutes "may impose an intolerable intrusion on" patient freedom.... When that appropriate challenge (or challenger) does come forward, we must be ready to extend our State constitutional protections to terminally ill patients seeking to exercise what remains of their bodily autonomy.

Justice Wendlandt, joined in part by Chief Justice Budd, filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.  He said in part:

Because I agree with the court that there is no fundamental right to prescribe, or to receive a prescription for, medication to assist a terminally ill, mentally competent patient's suicide (physician-assisted suicide), I concur in the judgment as it concerns Steinbach. I also agree with the court that application of the criminal laws to physician-assisted suicide generally survives rational basis review. I write separately because, when a terminally ill, mentally competent patient approaches the final stage of the dying process, the Commonwealth's interest in criminalizing physician-assisted suicide reduces to a nullity, such that even under rational basis review, the State Constitution protects the nonfundamental right to physician-assisted suicide from application of the State's criminal laws.

WBUR News reports on the decision.

Results From Election Day on Ballot Issues of Interest

Here are Tuesday's vote results for the ten ballot issues of interest to those following law and religion developments.  More details and updated information are available at Ballotpedia.

Arkansas Issue 3: Constitutional amendment that would provide "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability." Losing 49.56%- 50.44% with 97% of precincts reporting.

California Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment. Passed 65%- 35%.

Colorado Amendment F: Constitutional amendment to allow operators of charitable gaming activities to be paid and authorize the legislature to determine how long an organization must exist to obtain a charitable gaming license. Defeated 39%- 61%.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2:  Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion. Defeated 48%- 52%.

Michigan Proposal 3: Constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom. Passed 57%- 43%

Montana LR-131: Referendum on statute that states infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons, and requires medical care for infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, or attempted abortion. Losing 48%- 52% with 85% of precincts reporting.

Nevada Question 1: Constitutional amendment to prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights on account of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin. Winning 57%- 43% with 77% of precincts reporting.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4: Amendment to repeal section of the Tennessee Constitution that disqualifies religious ministers from being elected to the state General Assembly. Passed 63%- 37%.

Vermont Proposal 5: Constitution amendment that would protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and prohibit government infringement unless justified by a compelling state interest. Passed 77%- 23%.

West Virginia Amendment 3: Amendment to remove the state constitution's prohibition on incorporating religious denominations and churches and to authorize the state legislature to pass laws providing for such incorporations. Defeated 45%- 55%.

Ten Issues of Interest Are on Today's Ballots Across the Country

Today voters in ten states will be voting on ballot measures that relate to religious institutions, reproductive rights, clergy, religious freedom or religious and LGBTQ discrimination.  Here are summaries of each measure with links to fuller explanations on Ballotpedia:

Arkansas Issue 3: Constitutional amendment that would provide "government shall not burden a person's freedom of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

California Proposition 1: Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment.

Colorado Amendment F: Constitutional amendment to allow operators of charitable gaming activities to be paid and authorize the legislature to determine how long an organization must exist to obtain a charitable gaming license.

Kentucky Constitutional Amendment 2:  Amendment to the Kentucky Constitution to provide that nothing in the state constitution creates a right to abortion or requires government funding for abortion.

Michigan Proposal 3: Constitutional amendment to provide a right to reproductive freedom.

Montana LR-131: Referendum on statute that states infants born alive at any stage of development are legal persons, and requires medical care for infants born alive after an induced labor, cesarean section, or attempted abortion.

Nevada Question 1: Constitutional amendment to prohibit the denial or abridgment of rights on account of an individual's race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry or national origin.

Tennessee Constitutional Amendment 4: Amendment to repeal section of the Tennessee Constitution that disqualifies religious ministers from being elected to the state General Assembly.

Vermont Proposal 5: Constitution amendment that would protect the right to personal reproductive autonomy and prohibit government infringement unless justified by a compelling state interest.

West Virginia Amendment 3: Amendment to remove the state constitution's prohibition on incorporating religious denominations and churches and to authorize the state legislature to pass laws providing for such incorporations.

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.

Indiana Abortion Ban Preliminarily Enjoined

In Planned Parenthood Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc. v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., Sept. 22, 2022), an Indiana state trial court judge yesterday issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of Indiana's recently enacted restrictive abortion ban. The court said in part:

Regardless of whether the right is framed as a privacy right, a right to bodily autonomy, a right of self-determination, a bundle of liberty rights, or by some other appellation, there is a reasonable likelihood that decisions about family planning, including decisions about whether to carry a pregnancy to term-- are included in [Indiana Constitution] Article I, §1's protections....

Because of these considerations, and the history of Indiana's constitution being interpreted to provide greater protection to individual citizens that its federal counterpart, there is a reasonable likelihood that this significant restriction of personal autonomy offends the liberty guarantees of the Indiana Constitution and the Plaintiffs will prevail on the merits as to their claim that S.B. 1 violates Article I, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution.

The case was decided by a Special Judge after two other judges recused themselves (Background). ACLU Indiana issued a press release announcing the decision. ABC News reports that the state plans to file an appeal of the decision, and that abortion clinics in the state are preparing to reopen.

Appropriation To Christian School Challenged Under South Carolina Constitution

Suit was filed yesterday in a South Carolina state trial court contending that a state budget appropriation of $1.5 million to  Christian Learning Centers of Greenville County violates the provision in South Carolina's constitution that bars the use of public funds "for the direct benefit of any religious or other private educational institution." The complaint (full text) in Parker v. McMaster, (SC Com. Pl., filed 9/20/2022) asserts that the appropriation also contravenes the state constitution's Establishment Clause. The appropriation is aimed at partially funding a $14 million residential school for disadvantaged and at-risk youth. Freedom From Religion Foundation issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Suit Contends Indiana Abortion Restrictions Violate State Constitution

Suit was filed Tuesday in an Indiana state trial court challenging the state's recently-enacted law that bans abortions, with exceptions during early pregnancy to protect the life or to prevent serious health risk to the mother, in cases if lethal fetal anomaly, and in cases of rape or incest. Also all abortions are required to be performed in hospitals or hospital-owned outpatient surgical centers. The complaint (full text) in Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, (IN Cir. Ct., filed 8/3-/2022), contends in part:

S.B. 1’s total abortion ban strips away the fundamental rights of people seeking abortion care in Indiana in violation of the State Constitution. It will infringe on Hoosiers’ right to privacy, violate Indiana’s guarantee of equal privileges and immunities, and violate the Constitution’s due course of law clause through its unconstitutionally vague language.

Courthouse News Service reports on the lawsuit.

Preliminary Relief Denied In Challenge To Georgia Anti-Abortion Law

In Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. State of Georgia, (GA Super. Ct., Aug. 15, 2022), a Georgia state trial court refused to grant a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of Georgia's LIFE Act while its constitutionality is being litigated. The Act, with limited exceptions, bars abortions once a heartbeat is detectable. The court held that Georgia's constitutional provision that waives sovereign immunity for an injunction after the award of declaratory relief does not waive sovereign immunity for a preliminary injunction before declaratory relief has been granted. The Georgia ACLU issued a press release discussing the decision.

Idaho Supreme Court Refuses To Stop Effectiveness Of Abortion Bans

In Planned Parenthood Great Northwest v. State of Idaho,(ID Sup. Ct., Aug. 12, 2022), the Idaho Supreme Court, in a 3-2 decision, refused to issue a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement while litigation is pending of a statute triggered by the overruling of Roe v. Wade imposing a near-total abortion ban, as well as of a six-week abortion ban. The court also vacated a preliminary stay it had previously issued barring enforcement of a law that creates civil liability in suits against persons performing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable. Plaintiffs contend that the statutes violate various provisions of the Idaho constitution. The majority concluded that petitioners had not shown a substantial likelihood of success or violation of a clear legal right as to either of the statutes.

Justice Stegner, joined by Justice Zahn, dissented contending that it is sufficient that petitioners showed irreparable harm if a stay in not granted; they do not need to also show a likelihood of success. The dissent said in part:

The State and the Legislature’s only argument that irreparable harm will not result is that the Idaho Constitution does not protect the right to an abortion. This argument fails because it is premised on a decision we have not yet made.

Fox News reports on the decision.

Georgia Abortion Law Challenged Under State Constitution

After the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last week upheld Georgia's abortion laws against federal constitutional challenges, suit was filed Monday in a Georgia state trial court challenging Georgia's 6-week abortion ban under Georgia's state constitution. The complaint (full text) in Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. State of Georgia, (GA Super. Ct., filed 7/26/2022) alleges in part:

91. Because federal constitutional law clearly prohibited pre-viability abortion bans when the Six-Week Ban was enacted in 2019, the Act is void ab initio and unenforceable....

92. By banning abortion from the earliest weeks of pregnancy and thus forcing pregnancy and childbirth upon countless Georgians, H.B. 481 violates Plaintiffs’ patients’ and members’ rights to: (a) liberty and privacy guaranteed by various provisions of the Georgia Constitution ... and (b) equal protection....

93. By specifically excluding pregnant Georgians experiencing an acute psychiatric emergency from H.B. 481’s “medical emergency” exception, H.B. 481 violates Plaintiffs’ patients’ and members’ rights to: (a) liberty and privacy....

94. By requiring Georgians pregnant as a result of rape/incest to disclose their assault to law enforcement as a condition of ending the pregnancy, H.B. 481 violates Plaintiffs’ patients’ and members’ rights to: (a) liberty and privacy ... and (b) equal protection....

95. By allowing district attorneys to access abortion patients’ personal medical records without due process protections, the Records Access Provision violates Plaintiffs’ patients’ and members’ rights to: (a) liberty and privacy...

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

Suit Challenges Wyoming's Abortion Ban [UPDATED]

On Monday, suit was filed in a Wyoming state trial court seeking a temporary restraining order as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions against enforcement of the recently enacted Wyoming Criminal Abortion Ban. The Complaint (full text) and supporting Memorandum (full text) in Johnson v. State of Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., filed 7/25/2022), contends that the ban violates plaintiffs' fundamental rights protected by the Wyoming Constitution, saying in part:

Plaintiff's fundamental rights which make up the right to be left alone by the government absent a compelling need narrowly drawn include, but are not limited to, their rights to equality, due process, uniform operation of the laws, family composition, privacy and bodily integrity, conscience, and access to health care.

One of the six plaintiffs alleges:

She is a reproductive age woman with immediate plans to marry and have children. Ms. Dow is a life-long practicing conservative Jew who intends to continue practicing her faith, including raising her children in her faith, which requires her to consider abortion as an available health care alternative in the event of pregnancy conditions which threaten her health.

WyoFile reports that a district judge has found good cause exists for an emergency hearing and has set a hearing for today.

UPDATE: The Casper Star Tribune reports that the court issued a 14-day temporary restraining order against enforcement of the law on July 27, the day the law was to go into effect.

Minnesota Abortion Restrictions Struck Down Under State Constitution

In Doe v. State of Minnesota, (MN Dist. Ct., July 11, 2022), a Minnesota state trial court judge in a 140-page opinion held that a series of state abortion restrictions violate various provisions in the Minnesota state Constitution. The court summarized its conclusions:

[T]his court concludes that Minnesota abortion laws relating to mandated physician care, hospitalization, criminalization, parental notification, and informed consent are unconstitutional. 

These abortion laws violate the right to privacy because they infringe upon the fundamental right under the Minnesota Constitution to access abortion care and do not withstand strict scrutiny. The parental notification law violates the guarantee of equal protection for the same reasons. The informed consent law also violates the right to free speech under the Minnesota Constitution, because it is misleading and confusing, and does not withstand intermediate scrutiny. Accordingly, this court is declaring those laws unconstitutional and permanently enjoining their enforcement.

Courthouse News Service reports on the decision.

Florida Judge Says 15-Week Abortion Ban Violates State Constitution

Palm Beach Post and Florida ACLU report that yesterday, a Florida state circuit court judge ruled from the bench that Florida's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy violates the Florida Constitution's protection of the right of privacy. However the judge has not yet issued a formal written opinion or entered a preliminary injunction, so the 15 week ban will go into effect today until an injunction actually issues.

Suit Seeks To Block Ohio's Heartbeat Abortion Law

 An original action seeking a writ of mandamus was filed in the Ohio Supreme Court this week by several abortion providers seeking to block enforcement of Ohio's 6-week Heartbeat abortion law and reinstate the state's former 20-week provision.  The complaint (full text) in State ex rel Preterm- Cleveland v. Yost, (Ohio Sup. Ct., filed 6/28/2022), contends various provisions in the Ohio Constitution  protect abortion rights:

12. The Ohio Constitution’s Due Course of Law Clause, when read together with other distinctive provisions, including Article I, Sections 1, 16, and 21, establishes an independent right to abortion under the Ohio Constitution. That right is infringed by S.B. 23.

13. Captured within the substantive due process rights protected by the Due Course of Law Clause are the rights to reproductive autonomy and bodily integrity....

14. Likewise, Ohio’s Equal Protection and Benefit Clause provides broader protections than its federal analogue.

Ohio Capital Journal reports on the lawsuit.

Survey Reveals References To God or The Divine In Every State Constitution

In a study posted yesterday, Pew Research Center finds that "God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall."  The researchers add:

Of the 116 times the word [God] appears in state constitutions, eight are in the Massachusetts constitution, and New Hampshire and Vermont have six references each. Perhaps surprisingly, all three of these states are among the least religious in the country, according to a 2016 Pew Research Center analysis.