Court Enjoins Most of Missouri's Abortion Restrictions, But Clinics Still Impeded from Reopening

In Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains v. State of Missouri, (Cir. Ct., Dec. 20, 2024), a Missouri state trial court issued a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of many of Missouri's abortion restrictions. The court found that many of the state's restrictive laws, including the state's total ban, gestational age ban and reasons ban, to be unenforceable under the Right to Reproductive Freedom constitutional amendment approved by Missouri voters in November. However, the court refused to enjoin certain existing abortion regulations, finding that plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success in challenging these. Among the provisions that remain in effect are the abortion facility licensing requirements, the requirement for in-person appointments and the requirement that only physicians perform abortions. In a press release, Planned Parenthood said that some of the restrictions that remain in effect preclude it from beginning to again offer abortion services, saying in part:

... [T]he practical effect of the decision is that no health center in the state can restart abortion services because none has an abortion license, or can get one under the state’s draconian requirements. The vast majority of Planned Parenthood health centers cannot comply with the medically irrelevant size requirements for hallways, rooms, and doors—and no health centers are able to comply with an equally irrelevant, invasive vaginal exam for patients seeking medication abortion. Plaintiffs will continue to fight to see that these restrictions are enjoined.

[Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

House Committee Holds Hearing on Biden Administration's Use of the FACE Act

On Wednesday, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing titled Revisiting the Implications of the FACE Act: Part II.  The hearing focused largely on whether the current administration has applied the Freedom of Access to Clinics Act unequally, and on the impact of the Dobbs decision on FACE. A video of the hearing and links to witnesses' prepared statements are available at the Judiciary Committee's website.

Indiana Supreme Court Lets Preliminary Injunction Against Abortion Ban When It Violates Religious Beliefs Stand

Last week, the Indiana Supreme Court, by a vote of 3-2, refused to review at this stage in the litigation a preliminary injunction entered by lower courts in a suit claiming that the state's Religious Freedom Restoration Act is violated when plaintiffs are prohibited by Indiana's abortion law from obtaining an abortion that their religious beliefs direct them to obtain. (See prior posting.) In Individual Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana v. Anonymous Plaintiff 1, (IN Sup. Ct., Dec. 10, 2024), the Order denying the petition to transfer the case to the Supreme Court was not accompanied by a majority opinion. However, Justice Molter joined by Justice Rush filed a concurring opinion saying in part:

This case involves an unusual preliminary injunction—the trial court temporarily enjoined state officials from enforcing the State’s abortion law, but only for a particular group of women who are not pregnant and therefore are not seeking an abortion. The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court didn’t exceed its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction while the case continues to be litigated. But the panel also directed the trial court to narrow the preliminary injunction on remand. So thus far, this case is not stopping the defendants from doing anything. And we don’t yet know if it ever will, including because the defendants may ultimately prevail in the lawsuit....

I conclude the more prudent course is for the Court to review the case after a final judgment rather than following a preliminary injunction, which remains a work in progress and subject to more deferential appellate review. In essence, it is better that we review the trial court’s final answer rather than its first guess....

Justice Slaughter, joined by Justice Massa, filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Our denial of transfer means the trial court’s “final answer” will lack the benefit of our current thinking. By saying nothing, we may leave the misimpression that the injunction’s only vulnerability is its scope. As my colleagues acknowledge, this case “presents transfer-worthy issues with previously undecided questions of statewide importance”.

Indiana ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Cert Granted on Whether Medicaid Beneficiary Can Challenge Cutoff of Funds to Planned Parenthood

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted review in Kerr v. Planned Parenthood, (Docket No. 23-1275, certiorari granted 12/18/2024) on the question of whether individual Medicaid beneficiaries have a private right of action to enforce the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified provider provision. The case arises from a challenge to South Carolina's termination of Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood. This was Question 1 presented by the petition for certiorari, the issue on which the Supreme Court granted review. Here is the SCOTUSblog case page with links to pleadings and briefs in the case.

9th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments on Whether EMTALA Pre-empts State Abortion Ban

Yesterday, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, heard oral arguments (video of full oral arguments) in United States v. State of Idaho, (9th Cir., 12/10/2024). The case poses the question of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act that requires hospitals accepting Medicare to provide stabilizing emergency treatment to patients preempts state abortion bans when such treatment would involve pregnancy termination. Links to the numerous amicus briefs and court orders in the case are available at the Health Care Litigation Tracker. (See prior related posting.)

9th Circuit Narrows Preliminary Injunction Against Idaho's Abortion Trafficking Law

 In a 2-1 decision in Matsumoto v. Labrador, (9th Cir., Dec. 2, 2024) the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals significantly narrowed an Idaho federal district court's preliminary injunction against enforcement of the state's ban on assisting a minor in various ways to obtain an abortion without her parent's consent. The majority concluded that plaintiffs were likely to succeed only in their challenge to one part of the law.

 Idaho Code §18-623 provides:

An adult who, with the intent to conceal an abortion from the parents or guardian of a pregnant, unemancipated minor, either procures an abortion ... or obtains an abortion-inducing drug for the pregnant minor to use for an abortion by recruiting, harboring, or transporting the pregnant minor within this state commits the crime of abortion trafficking.

The majority held that the statute is not void for vagueness, nor does it burden the right of expressive association. It concluded, however, that the statute's ban on "recruiting" is an unconstitutionally overbroad regulation of protected speech. The court said in part:

 ... “[R]ecruiting” has broad contours that overlap extensively with the First Amendment. It sweeps in a large swath of expressive activities—from encouragement, counseling, and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive health care; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access. It is not difficult to conclude from these examples that the statute encompasses, and may realistically be applied to, a substantial amount of protected speech....

In our view, the “recruiting” prong of Section 18-623 is neither integral nor indispensable to the operation of the statute as the Idaho legislature intended and therefore may be severed from the rest of the law. Without the “recruiting” prong, the statute criminalizes “harboring or transporting” a minor to “procure an abortion” “with the intent to conceal [the abortion] from the parents or guardian” of the minor— an intelligible crime that reaches the problems the legislature sought to rectify.

Judge Bea dissented in part. He argued that plaintiffs lack standing and therefore the district court should dismiss the suit. Idaho Capital Sun reports on the decision.

Missouri AG Issues Opinion on Which Abortion Restrictions Remain Enforceable After Reproductive Freedom Amendment

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has issued Opinion Letter No. 22-2024, (Nov. 22, 2024) outlining the extent to which the state's restrictive abortion laws are still enforceable after voter adoption of a state constitutional amendment protecting abortion rights. The Opinion Letter was requested by Missouri Governor-Elect Mike Kehoe. The Attorney General's Opinion Letter reads in part:

... Amendment 3 was adopted-- just barely-- by a margin of 3%. In a contest where the "yes:" side was able in effect to rewrite the ballot summary language, receive tens of millions of dollars in funding from out of state, and outspent the "no" side 6 to 1, this tight margin suggests the result may be very different if a future constitutional amendment is put up for a vote.

Nevertheless, until and unless voters have an opportunity to vote again ..., Amendment 3 will render some statutes unenforceable.... Missouri statutes entirely prohibit elective abortions-- i.e., abortions other than those performed because of a medical emergency.... Amendment 3 ... will generally prohibit ... officials from enforcing these provisions....

... [T]here will remain some circumstances where these five statutes are enforceable....

First, under the express terms of the amendment, the government may still protect innocent life after viability....

Second, the Attorney General will continue to enforce these statutes in circumstances where parents do not consent to an adolescent minor obtaining an abortion. Under the U.S. Constitution, parents have a "fundamental right ... to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children."... This includes the "right to refuse unwanted medical treatment."... Amendment 3 cannot displace that federal constitutional right....

... [W]hen the Supreme Court reversed the Roe line of cases, ... the court restored longstanding parental rights.

Third... [t]he right of parents to forbid minors from obtaining abortions should not be misunderstood to somehow imply a right to force abortion on minors.

The same is true for adults coerced into abortion.... Amendment 3 does not give abortion clinics a right to perform abortions on women who have been coerced....

Missouri Independent reports on the Attorney General's Opinion Letter. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Illinois Requirements for Insurance Policies to Cover Abortions

Suit was filed yesterday in an Illinois federal district court challenging on both constitutional and federal statutory grounds Illinois statutes that requires health-insurance policies to cover elective abortions on the same terms as other pregnancy-related benefits and to cover, without co-pays, abortion inducing drugs. The complaint (full text) in Students for Life of America v. Gillespie, (ND IL, filed 11/20/2024), alleges that these provisions violate free exercise rights, the right of expressive association, the federal Comstock Act, the Coates-Snow Amendment and the Weldon Amendment. Thomas More Society issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

State Trial Court Strikes Down Wyoming Abortion Bans

In Johnson v. State of Wyoming, (WY Dist. Ct., Nov. 18, 2024), a Wyoming state trial court held that two Wyoming statutes barring abortions violate the Wyoming Constitution. One of the statutes bans all abortions with narrow exceptions. The other is a ban on prescribing or selling medication abortion drugs. The court said in part:

Under the Life Act and the Medication Abortion Ban, the State has enacted laws that impede the fundamental right to make health care decisions for an entire class of people, pregnant women. Wyoming Constitution, article 1, section 38 provides all individuals with the fundamental right to their own personal autonomy when making medical decisions. The Defendants have not established a compelling governmental interest to exclude pregnant women from fully realizing the protections afforded by the Wyoming Constitution during the entire term of their pregnancies, nor have the Defendants established that the Abortion Statutes accomplish their interest. The Court concludes that the Abortion Statutes suspend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions during the entire term of a pregnancy and are not reasonable or necessary to protect the health and general welfare of the people.

The court entered a permanent injunction, thus extending the temporary restraining orders that it had previously issued. Buckrail reports on the decision and reports that Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon has indicated that the decision will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.   [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Suit Challenges Kentucky Abortion Bans

A class action lawsuit was filed last week in a Kentucky state trial court challenging the constitutionality under the Kentucky state constitution of two separate abortion bans found in Kentucky statutes. The complaint (full text) in Poe v. Coleman, (KY Cir. Ct., filed 11/12/2024), alleges that both the six-week ban, and the near total ban violate the right to privacy and the right to self-determination protected by the individual liberty guarantees of Sections 1 and 2 of the Kentucky Constitution.  The complaint alleges in part:

92. The constitutional right to privacy protects against the intrusive police power of the state, putting personal and private decision-making related to sexual and reproductive matters beyond the reach of the state. The right to privacy thus protects the right of a pregnant individual to access abortion if they decide to terminate their pregnancy. ...

98. The constitutional right to self-determination guards every Kentuckian’s ability to possess and control their own person and to determine the best course of action for themselves and their body. An individual who is required by the government to remain pregnant against her will— a significant physiological process affecting one’s health for 40 weeks and culminating in childbirth—experiences interference of the highest order with her right to possess and control her own person. The right to self-determination thus protects Kentuckians’ power to control whether to continue or terminate their own pregnancies.

The Kentucky ACLU issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Abortion Rights Proposals Approved by Voters In 7 of 10 States

In ten states yesterday, voters were asked to approve ballot measures that would guarantee abortion rights.  Voters approved proposals guaranteeing abortion rights in 7 of the 10 states.  Here are the results of those votes as of Wednesday morning. Ballotpedia has details of each proposal and updated vote figures:

• Arizona- 61.74% in favor; 38.26% opposed (50% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Colorado- 61.48% in favor; 38.52% opposed (73% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Florida- 57.13% in favor; 42.87% opposed (60% vote needed to approve the constitutional amendment) (93% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Maryland- 74.11% in favor; 25.89% opposed (76% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Missouri- 51.85% in favor; 48.15% opposed (95%+ of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Montana- 57.44% in favor; 42.56% opposed (87% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Nebraska- pro-abortion rights proposal: in favor 48.66%; opposed 51.34%.  Abortion ban after first trimester proposal: in favor 55.32%; opposed 44.68% (99% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• Nevada- 63.33% in favor; 36.67% opposed (84% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• New York- 61.51% in favor; 38.49% opposed (85% of precincts reporting)
  
  
• South Dakota- 40.28% in favor; 59.72% opposed (91% of precincts reporting)

Ballot Measures to Watch in Tuesday's Elections

Tuesday's elections around the country will feature an unusually large number of ballot measures of particular interest to Religion Clause readers. According to Ballotpedia, there will be eleven proposals on abortion rights:

• Arizona Proposition 139
• Colorado Amendment 79
• Florida Amendment 4
• Maryland Question 1
• Missouri Amendment 3
• Montana CI-128
• Nebraska Initiative 434 and Initiative 439 (competing proposals)
• Nevada Question 6
• New York Proposal 1 (also includes sexual orientation, gender identity and other issues)
• South Dakota Constitutional Amendment G

Voters in three states will cast ballots on repeal of now unenforceable bans on same-sex marriage: California, Colorado, Hawaii. The California proposal would also affirmatively guarantee the right to marry.

Colorado proposal would guarantee the right to school choice and parental control of their children's education. A Kentucky proposal would allow state funding for students in non-public schools. A Nebraska referendum asks voters whether to repeal a state law providing for an educational scholarship program for students in non-public schools.

American United's magazine Church & State discusses Tuesday ballot measures relating to church-state separation that will be presented to voters in eleven states.

7th Circuit Hears Oral Arguments Challenging Schol's Derecognition of "Students For Life" Club

On Tuesday, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in E. D. v. Noblesville School District, (7th Cir., Docket No. 24-1698), In the case (E.D. v. Noblesville School District, SD IN, March 15, 2024), an Indiana federal district court dismissed various First Amendment and other claims against a school district and district officials who derecognized a high school Students For Life Club on the ground that it was not entirely run by students.  The derecognition followed lengthy discussions over the club's advertising flyers. ADF issued a press release announcing the oral arguments.

7th Circuit Hears Arguments on Standing to Challenge Indiana Abortion Law

Last week (Oct. 24) the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments (audio of full oral arguments) in Satanic Temple, Inc. v. Rokita, (Docket No. 23-3247). In the case, an Indiana federal district court dismissed The Satanic Temple's challenge under Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act to the state's ban on abortions. The court dismissed for lack of standing, finding that TST failed to identify any of its members who are pregnant and has no clinic of its own operating in Indiana. (See prior posting.)

Suit Challenges HIPPA Rules Barring Reporting of Out-of-State Abortions

As previously reported, in April of this year the Department of Health and Human Services issued new privacy rules under HIPPA designed to protect women (and those who assist them) who travel out of state for an abortion that is not legal in their state of residence. Yesterday, suit was filed in a Texas federal district court challenging the rules.  The complaint (full text) in Purl v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ND TX, filed 10/21/2024), alleges that the new privacy rules cover not only abortion, but also hormone and drug interventions for gender dysphoria and surgical procedures on an individual's reproductive system. The complaint alleges in part:

5. ... [T]he 2024 Rule purports to limit the circumstances when a HIPAA-covered entity can share information with government agencies, such as state child-welfare agencies and law enforcement agencies, both state and federal.  

6. HIPAA-covered entities that share information in contravention of HHS’s regulations incur criminal liability. 

7. Yet the HIPAA statute explicitly preserves government authority to investigate and to require disclosures concerning abuse. 

8. The 2024 Rule lacks statutory authority and is arbitrary and capricious. As such, the Court should vacate and set aside the Rule and preliminarily and permanently enjoin its enforcement....

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

Court Enjoins Disciplining of Doctors Performing Certain Abortions in Tennessee

In Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, (TN Chanc. Ct., Oct. 17, 2024), a Tennessee state Chancery Court issued a temporary injunction barring the state from instituting disciplinary proceedings against plaintiff physicians for performing abortions in any of four specified medical situations. The court found that plaintiffs are likely to succeed in their challenges under the right to life, liberty or property and the equal protection clauses of the state constitution and in their vagueness challenge. The court said in part:

The question remains ... whether the Medical Necessity Exception, as currently written, serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that goal.  Given the range of interpretations proffered through the expert declarations ..., the Court finds that the issue of which conditions, and the timing of when they present and escalate to life-threatening conditions, constitute medical emergencies within the Medical Necessity Exception is demonstrably unclear, notwithstanding the “reasonable medical judgment’ of the physician standard set forth in the Exception.  This lack of clarity is evidenced by the confusion and lack of consensus within the Tennessee medical community on the circumstances requiring necessary health- and life-saving abortion care.  The evidence presented underscores how serious, difficult, and complex these issues are and raises significant questions as to whether the Medical Necessity Exception is sufficiently narrow to serve a compelling state interest....

Plaintiff Patients, as pregnant women, claim they are similarly situated to non-pregnant women who seek and are in need of emergency medical care.  Yet because of the criminal abortion statute, pregnant women are treated differently than non-pregnant women because their access to emergency medical care is restricted....

While the court enjoined disciplinary proceedings, it held that it lacked jurisdiction to enjoin enforcement of the state's criminal abortion statute. The Hill reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Florida Voters Sue Claiming Invalid Signatures on Abortion Rights Amendment Petitions

Suit was filed last week in a Florida state trial court against election supervisors in 12 Florida counties, as well as against the Secretary of State, other state officials and the sponsors of Amendment 4, a proposed abortion rights amendment that appears on the November Florida ballot. The complaint, brought by four Florida voters, alleges illegal and fraudulent petition signature-gathering efforts. Plaintiffs rely in large part on the Office of Election Crimes and Security's October 2024 Interim Report to Legislature on Initiative Petition Fraud Related to the Abortion Initiative.  The complaint (full text) in Hoffman v. Barton, (FL Cir. Ct., filed 10/16/2024), includes 348 pages of exhibits and alleges in part:

186, Because FPF submitted signatures collected on a pay-per-signature basis, the petition process was substantially infected by fraud and corruption. The substantial fraud and corruption that permeated the election process constitutes a basis for the Court to decertify and strike Amendment 4 from the 2024 General Election Ballot or—if this case is not resolved before the election—to enjoin the State Defendants from counting the votes or, if passed, to enjoin the State Defendants from giving effect to votes cast in favor of Amendment 4.   

187. Although the Secretary of State has issued a certificate of ballot placement, the certificate does not cure the fraud and corruption that infected the petition process. Moreover, if the 2024 General Election occurs prior to the resolution of this action, passage will similarly not cure the fraud and corruption that resulted in Amendment 4’s passage. 

In October, the ACLU responded to the Interim Report, saying in part:

The Secretary of State’s unprecedented and suspiciously-timed report makes nonsensical claims about a few hundred petitions, which would have had no effect on the campaign meeting the statutory requirements. Importantly, the state had an opportunity to file objections to petitions before April, but did not object to the inconsequential petitions for which it is now attempting to sanction and publicly chastise the campaign.

Liberty Counsel issued a press release last week announcing the filing of last week's lawsuit.

Florida Enjoined from Threatening Legal Action Against Broadcasters Airing Pro-Abortion Rights Ads

 In Floridians Protecting Freedom, Inc. v. Ladapo, (ND FL, Oct. 17, 2024), a Florida federal district court issued a temporary restraining order barring the head of the Florida Department of Health from continuing to threaten legal proceedings against television stations broadcasting plaintiff's ads which favor Florida's abortion rights amendment that appears on the November ballot. The Department of Health's general counsel sent letters to Florida television stations contending that the ads constituted a sanitary nuisance under Florida Statutes Sec. 386.01. The statute defines a statutory nuisance as anything "by which the health or life of an individual ... may be threatened or impaired." The court said in part:

Plaintiff’s political advertisement is political speech—speech at the core of the First Amendment. And just this year, the United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the government cannot do indirectly what it cannot do directly by threatening third parties with legal sanctions to censor speech it disfavors. The government cannot excuse its indirect censorship of political speech simply by declaring the disfavored speech is “false.” “The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.” ...

By threatening criminal proceedings for broadcasting a “political advertisement claiming that current Florida law does not allow physicians to perform abortions necessary to preserve the lives and health of pregnant women,” ... Defendant has engaged in viewpoint discrimination....

Whether it’s a woman’s right to choose, or the right to talk about it, Plaintiff’s position is the same—“don’t tread on me.” Under the facts of this case, the First Amendment prohibits the State of Florida from trampling on Plaintiff’s free speech.

Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates 6-Week Abortion Ban While Appeal Is Heard

Yesterday in State of Georgia v. Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 7, 2024), the Georgia Supreme Court in a brief order reinstated Georgia's 6-week abortion ban while an appeal of a trial court's injunction is litigated. Last week a state trial court had enjoined enforcement of the abortion ban, finding it unconstitutional under the state constitution. (See prior posting.) Supreme Court Justice Ellington filed an opinion dissenting from the Supreme Court's order, saying in part:

In its motion, the State fails to show any reason for urgency that goes beyond their underlying arguments in favor of allowing the State to prevent women from deciding whether to terminate a pregnancy after embryonic cardiac activity can be detected and before a fetus is viable....

Fundamentally, the State should not be in the business of enforcing laws that have been determined to violate fundamental rights guaranteed to millions of individuals under the Georgia Constitution. The “status quo” that should be maintained is the state of the law before the challenged laws took effect.

The state Supreme Court did not stay the trial court's injunction against a provision making health records of women obtaining abortions available to the district attorney.  ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision. AP reports on the decision.

U.S. Supreme Court Opens New Term with Cert. Denials; Red Mass Yesterday

The U.S. Supreme Court's new term began today. Yesterday in Washington the annual Red Mass marking the opening of the Supreme Court's new term-- hosted by the D.C. Archdiocese and the John Carroll Society-- was held at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle. (Video of full Red Mass). According to the Washington Post, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett were in attendance.

Today, the Supreme Court issued its typical very lengthy first Order List of the Term, denying review in several hundred cases.  Among them were:

Becerra v. State of Texas, (Docket No. 23-1076, certiorari denied 10/7/2024). In the case, the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction issued by a Texas federal district court barring enforcement of a Guidance document on emergency abortion care issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. (See prior posting.) The HHS Guidance to hospitals (and accompanying Letter) stated that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires hospital emergency rooms to perform certain abortions, even when they violate Texas law, when an abortion is the stabilizing treatment necessary to resolve an emergency medical condition. AP reports on the denial of review.

Young Israel of Tampa v. Hillsborough Regional Transit, (Docket No. 23-1276, certiorari denied 10/7/2024). In the case, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals held unconstitutional a public transit agency's policy on the sale of advertising space on its vehicles and property.  (See prior posting.) The agency prohibited ads that "primarily promote a religious faith or religious organization." Applying this policy, the transit agency rejected an ad from plaintiff promoting a "Chanukah on Ice" event.

Hile v. State of Michigan, (Docket No. 23-1084, certiorari denied 10/7/2024). In the case, the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that an amendment placed in the Michigan Constitution in 1970 that prohibits public funds from being used to aid private or religious schools does not violate the equal protection rights of parents who cannot use Michigan Educational Savings Program to send their children to religious schools. (See prior posting.) The Hill reports on the Supreme Court's action.