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.

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.