Religious College Sues Georgia Seeking Inclusion in State Grant and Scholarship Programs

Yesterday suit was filed in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of excluding Luther Rice College and Seminary from state scholarship and grant programs for students attending private colleges. Georgia law excludes schools or colleges of theology or divinity. The complaint (full text) in Luther Rice College and Seminary v. Riley, (ND GA, filed 10/15/2024), alleges in part:

9. Georgia allows other religious schools—including schools with religious missions that offer religious undergraduate degree programs like Luther Rice—to participate in Georgia student aid programs....

11. If Luther Rice did not have a religious mission, offer religious degree programs, and teach all courses from a Christian worldview, its undergraduate students could receive Georgia student aid.

12. So Luther Rice faces a choice between (a) maintaining its religious mission and degree programs and teaching all courses from a Christian worldview, or (b) giving up that religious character and exercise to participate equally with other schools in the State.

13. Putting the school to that choice is unconstitutional....

Plaintiffs allege that the exclusion violates the free exercise and Establishment Clauses, the equal protection clause and plaintiff's free expression rights. ADF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

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.

Georgia's 6-Week Abortion Ban Declared Unconstitutional

In Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. State of Georgia, (GA Super. Ct., Sept. 30, 2024), a Georgia state trial court held unconstitutional under the state constitution Georgia's ban on abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected (usually around 6 weeks). The court said in part:

Before the LIFE Act, Georgia law required a woman to carry to term any fetus that was viable, that had become something that -- or more accurately someone who -- could survive independently of the woman.  That struck the proper balance between the woman’s right of “liberty of privacy” and the fetus’s right to life outside the womb.  Ending the pregnancy at that point would be ending a life that our community collectively can and would otherwise preserve; no one person should have the power to terminate that.  Pre-viability, however, the best intentions and desires of society do not control, as only the pregnant woman can fulfill that role of life support for those many weeks and months.  The question, then, is whether she should now be forced by the State via the LIFE Act to do so?  She should not.  Women are not some piece of collectively owned community property the disposition of which is decided by majority vote.  Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted, not-yet-viable fetus to term violates her constitutional rights to liberty and privacy, even taking into consideration whatever bundle of rights the not-yet-viable fetus may have....

For these women, the liberty of privacy means that they alone should choose whether they serve as human incubators for the five months leading up to viability.  It is not for a legislator, a judge, or a Commander from The Handmaid’s Tale to tell these women what to do with their bodies during this period when the fetus cannot survive outside the womb any more so than society could -- or should -- force them to serve as a human tissue bank or to give up a kidney for the benefit of another...

Anticipating the virtually certain appeal, the court went on to conclude that even if it is mistaken about the constitutionality of the 6-week ban, the exception for physical health emergencies, but not mental health ones, violates the equal protection clause of the Georgia constitution. It also found unconstitutional the provision of the act making health records of women obtaining abortions available to the district attorney. However, it held that if the 6-week ban is constitutional, the conditioning of the rape or incest ban on a police report having been filed is constitutional.  CNN reports on the decision.

11th Circuit Enjoins New Title IX Rules in 4 States, Pending Appeal

 In State of Alabama v. U.S. Secretary of Education, (11th Cir., Aug. 22, 2024), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, issued an injunction pending appeal barring enforcement in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina of the Department of Education's new rules under Title IX.  The new rules define discrimination on the basis of sex as including discrimination on the basis of gender identity. They also reduce the threshold for concluding that conduct amounts to sex discrimination. The majority pointed out:

Before this action, every court to consider the issue across the nation—seven district courts and two courts of appeals— preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the rule.  The district court here, by contrast, refused to enjoin the rule a day before it was supposed to go into effect.

Judge Wilson dissented contending that plaintiffs have not shown the irreparable injury required for obtaining an injunction. ADF issued a press release announcing the decision.

Georgia Supreme Court: 2019 Heartbeat Abortion Ban Was Not Void Ab Initio

In State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Oct. 24, 2023), the Georgia Supreme Court rejected a state trial court's holding that the state's heartbeat abortion ban (Living Infants Fairness and Equality Act) enacted in 2019 was void ab initio. The state Supreme Court had previously granted a stay of the trial court's order while the appeal was pending. Yesterday's decision keeps the law in effect while other challenges to it work their way through the courts. In yesterday's decision, the court said in part:

[T]he trial court concluded that portions of the LIFE Act were void when enacted in 2019 because they “were plainly unconstitutional [under the United States Constitution] when drafted, voted upon, and enacted.” According to the trial court, this was true even though the LIFE Act would comply with the United States Constitution if enacted today and the same United States Constitution governs today as governed when the LIFE Act was enacted.

This incorrect conclusion rests on a faulty premise — that, in Dobbs, the United States Supreme Court changed not only its interpretation of the United States Constitution but also the meaning of the Constitution itself. This could be true, however, only if (1) the United States Supreme Court, as opposed to the United States Constitution, is the source of the Constitution’s meaning or (2) the United States Supreme Court has the power not only to interpret the Constitution but also to amend it.... [B]oth of these propositions conflict with well-established, foundational principles of law that are essential to our system of government.

The case now goes back to the trial court for it to consider other challenges under the state constitution to the law.

Justice Ellington filed a dissenting opinion. WABE News reports on the decision. ACLU issued a press release reacting to the decision.

Court Preliminarily Enjoins Georgia's Ban on Hormone Therapy for Transgender Minors

In Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, Aug. 20, 2023), a Georgia federal district court issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Georgia's ban on hormone replacement therapy for treatment of gender dysphoria in minors. The court said in part:

... SB 140 is subject to intermediate scrutiny both because it classifies on the basis of natal sex ... Adams, and because it places a special burden on nonconformity with sex stereotypes....

First, the preliminary record evidence of the medical risks and benefits of hormone therapy shows that a broad ban on the treatment is not substantially likely to serve the state’s interest in protecting children.... 

... [I]t should be recalled that the question put to the Court is not what the correct course of treatment is for an adolescent with gender dysphoria. The question is whether Georgia has shown an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for the challenged legislative scheme—a scheme that prohibits clinicians and parents from determining the correct course of treatment on an individualized basis, and which does so in a sex-based manner in that it imposes this prohibition only when it comes to “hormone replacement therapy” as a treatment for gender dysphoric youth....

... Defendants’ position that the quality of the existing evidence supporting hormone therapy justifies a ban of that therapy is not persuasive.

The court's decision was handed down one day before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes Georgia) issued an opinion vacating a preliminary injunction against Alabama's ban on hormone treatment for minors with gender dysphoria. (See prior posting.)  The Hill reports on the decision.

Suit Challenges Georgia Ban on Treatment of Minors for Gender Dysphoria

Suit was filed last week in a Georgia federal district court challenging the constitutionality of Georgia Senate Bill 140 which prohibits irreversible sex reassignment surgery and hormone replacement treatment of minors for gender dysphoria. The complaint (full text) in Koe v. Noggle, (ND GA, filed 6/29/2023), alleges in part:

The Health Care Ban violates the fundamental rights of parents to make medical decisions to ensure the health and well-being of their children. By prohibiting medical providers from treating minors with gender dysphoria—a rare condition often requiring medical and therapeutic treatment and care—in accordance with the standards of care and clinical practice guidelines, the Ban prohibits Georgia parents from seeking and obtaining appropriate medical treatment for their children.

... [It] also violates the guarantees of equal protection by denying transgender youth essential, and often lifesaving, medical treatment based on their sex and on their transgender status.

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

185 Methodist Churches in Georgia Sue Parent Body Seeking Disaffiliation

 At the end of last month, 185 Methodist congregations in Georgia filed suit in a Georgia state trial court against their parent body and its officials.  The congregations are attempting to disaffiliate from the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church pursuant to a provision (❡2553) added to the Church's Book of Discipline in 2019.  The provision, which applies to disaffiliations completed by the end of 2023, allows disaffiliating congregations to keep their real and personal property.  The complaint (full text) in Carrollton First United Methodist Church, Inc. v. Trustees of the North Georgia Conference of the United Methodist Church, Inc., (GA Superior Ct., filed 3/30/2023), alleges in part that: 

Defendants have conspired to "run out the clock" on Plaintiffs ability to utilize ❡2553 by a combination of ultra vires actions, fraudulent misrepresentations, and promises which they have failed to keep so that, unless this court intervenes, Plaintiffs cannot and indeed will not be allowed to fulfill the legislated requirements of ❡2553 in time to meet the sunset date of 12/31/23.

The complaint also alleges that the parent body is no longer allowing disaffiliating churches a credit for their share of a $23 million pension plan reserve fund.

In introductory paragraphs, the complaint contends:

This case can be resolved in accordance with secular Georgia law ... without interfering with the separation of church and state.... Defendants cannot be heard to contest this point, as Defendants have availed themselves of the same principles recently in a substantially similar context in this very court....

UM News, reporting on the lawsuit, says in part:

The lawsuit ... involves more than a quarter of the North Georgia Conference’s nearly 700 congregations. 

It’s also the most congregations that have banded together in a single lawsuit since the denomination began undergoing a slow-motion separation after decades of intensifying debate over LGBTQ inclusion.

Prosecutors' Council Releases Report on Past Child Sexual Abuse by Catholic Clergy In Georgia

Last week, the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia released its Report of Child Sexual Abuse in the Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Diocese of Savannah (full text) (press release). The 267-page report stems from a review of Catholic Archdiocese and Diocese records, files, documents and reports. Church officials cooperated fully in the review. The Report concludes in part:

This file review did not uncover any current, ongoing, or unreported sexual abuse by priests or criminal conduct. It did reveal historical criminal allegations in Georgia against priests. None of those priests could be prosecuted because they are either deceased, have already been prosecuted or the statute of limitations expired long before the review was agreed to by the parties. The evaluation of the files also uncovered that the Church, outside of and within Georgia, relocated priests after they were accused of sexually abusing children. At times, it appeared the church did so without providing notice to officials in the new parish, diocese, or archdiocese of the prior accusations of sexual abuse of children....

Further, this review uncovered historical acts by the church and its personnel that enabled sexual abuse of minors by its priests and prevented the discovery and investigation of these acts by public or civil authorities....

[S]ince 2002, the Archdiocese of Atlanta and the Diocese of Savannah have been notifying the appropriate authorities either by contacting the Department of Family and Children Services or law enforcement of child abuse allegations reported to their organizations....

Atlanta Journal Constitution discusses the Report.

Fraud Claims Against Ministry May Not Proceed as Class Action

In Carrier v. Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, Inc., (ND GA, March 3, 2023), a Georgia federal district court held that claims for unjust enrichment and violation of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act brought against a Christian apologetics ministry and the estate of its founder cannot proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs must instead proceed only in their individual capacities. The suit alleges that some of the contributions to the organization were used to facilitate or cover up the sexual misconduct by Ravi Zacharias.(See prior related posting.) The court found several reasons that a class action was not appropriate, saying in part:

[I]t is clear that the Court must require RZIM to disclose the identities of its donors in order to certify the class defined in the First Amended Complaint. The Proposed Class is defined as: “All persons in the United States who made contributions of monetary value to Ravi Zacharias and/or the Ravi Zacharias International Ministry from 2004 through February 9, 2021.”... It is impossible to certify such a class without compelling RZIM to disclose its donor lists. Compelled disclosure of RZIM’s donor lists and identification of the donors as financial supporters of a “sexual predator” would have an impermissible chilling effect upon their First Amendment rights to associate with RZIM and other likeminded religious believers....

In theory, a class could be certified that seeks an award of damages equal to all of the hundreds of millions of dollars contributed over the 16-year class period from 2004 through February 9, 2021. But the Plaintiffs admit that RZIM used the contributions of the Proposed Class to support a mission of spreading the Gospel, teaching new apologists, and trying to help people through humanitarian efforts. None of the donors were actually harmed by their contributions to RZIM, and it appears from the face of the First Amended Complaint that only a very small amount of the money contributed to RZIM was actually used to facilitate or cover up the sexual misconduct of Zacharias. Therefore, a class-wide damages award (even if possible) of all contributions would be inequitable and implausible....

While the Plaintiffs also ask the Court to enjoin the Defendants’ “unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices,” Zacharias died on May 19, 2020.... After that, RZIM commissioned an independent investigation of his misconduct and admitted wrongdoing; the results of that investigation have been well-publicized in the Christian community.... As pled, there is no further deceptive behavior by RZIM that would warrant injunctive relief. 

Christian Teacher Did Not Show That Her Removal Was Retaliation for Protected Speech or Beliefs

In Barr v. Tucker (SD GA, Feb. 21, 2023), a Georgia federal district court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiff whose position as a substitute elementary school teacher was terminated after she complained to her own children's teachers and to the principal about the school librarian's reading aloud to classes a book that contains illustrations of same-sex couples with school-age children. The court explained:

Plaintiff told Defendant Tucker [the school principal] that she believed the book was '"inappropriate for young children, conflicted with her Christian faith, and appeared to bean effort to indoctrinate young children into a progressive ideological agenda[]" and asked that her children be excused from the read-aloud program.

Plaintiff contended that the school had retaliated against her for her exercising her free speech and free exercise rights. The court disagreed, saying in part:

... Plaintiff's inquiries principally addressed her personal concerns about exempting her children from the read-aloud program, and the context of her speech suggests she spoke on a matter of private or personal interest.

Accordingly ... Plaintiff has failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success in showing she spoke on a matter of public concern .... As a result. Plaintiff has also failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of her First Amendment [free speech] retaliation claim....

The Court accepts, as Plaintiff alleges, that her sincerely held religious beliefs include ''that God created marriage to be between one man and one woman, and that family formation should occur within the confines of heterosexual marriage."... However, at this stage. Plaintiff has not established that she is substantially likely to succeed on showing that Defendants substantially burdened her religious beliefs by terminating her.

It is not clear that Defendants called for Plaintiff's removal due to her religious beliefs....

Defendants maintain they removed Plaintiff due to her inappropriately timed interactions with her children's teachers and concern about how she would support students or parents that identify as gay, not because of her beliefs about marriage and family formation.

EEOC Sues Over Refusal To Accommodate Religious Objections To Flu Vaccine

The EEOC announced on Friday that it has filed a Title VII religious discrimination lawsuit in a Georgia federal district court against Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta (CHOA), a pediatric healthcare system. According to the EEOC's press release:

... [A] maintenance employee, in accordance with CHOA’s procedures, requested a religious exemption to CHOA’s flu vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs. CHOA had previously granted the employee a religious exemption in 2017 and 2018. In 2019, however, CHOA denied the employee’s request for a religious accommodation and fired him, despite the employee’s extremely limited interaction with the public or staff.

... Title VII ... prohibits firing an employee because of his religion and requires that sincerely held religious beliefs be accommodated by employers....

“It would not have been an undue burden for CHOA to continue accommodating its employee as it had in 2017 and 2018,” said Marcus G. Keegan, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office. “Instead, CHOA inexplicably changed its stance on flu vaccination exemptions for this maintenance employee in 2019 and failed to consider any meaningful reasonable accommodations for his sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Suit Challenges Exclusion of Gender Transition Care From Health Insurance Policies

Suit was filed this week in a Georgia federal district court challenging under Title VII and Title IX the exclusion from certain state of Georgia's employee health care plans coverage for gender transition procedures.  The complaint (full text) in Rich v. Georgia, (ND GA, filed 12/14/2022) alleges in part:

United withdraws coverage for care that would otherwise be covered as medically necessary when it is needed for the purpose of “sex transformation operations and related services.” It lists this exclusion under the heading “Personal Care, Comfort or Convenience,” along with televisions, air conditioners, and barber service.

The complaint alleges that this exclusion, and a similar one by another company, amount to illegal sex discrimination. TLDEF issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Georgia Supreme Court Reinstates Heartbeat Abortion Ban

As previously reported, last week a Georgia state trial court held Georgia's heartbeat abortion ban unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement of two key provisions of the law.  In reaching its conclusion, the trial court invoked Georgia's "void ab initio" doctrine. Today in State of Georgia v. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, (GA Sup. Ct., Nove 23, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court in a brief order granted a stay of the trial court's order. This allows the ban to go back into effect. Seven of the nine justices concurred in the Order. One Justice was disqualified and one did not participate. ACLU issued a press release announcing the decision.

Georgia's Heartbeat Abortion Ban Is Held Invalid

In Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. State of Georgia, (GA Super. Ct., Nov. 15, 2022), a Georgia state trial court enjoined enforcement of two sections of Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act which was enacted in 2019.  The court invoked Georgia's "Void Ab Initio" doctrine. Quoting a Georgia Supreme Court case decided in 1900, the court said:

The time with reference to which the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly is to be determined is the date of its passage, and, if it is unconstitutional, then it is forever void.

Applying this, the court concluded that Section 4 which bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, and Section 11 which requires physicians to file a justification for any abortions where a fetal heartbeat was detected, both were void when enacted and never became the law of Georgia.  However, Section 10 which requires doctors to determine the presence of a human heartbeat before performing an abortion is valid since even before the Dobbs decision, it could be justified as providing the mother with more information about the state of her pregnancy. The court also refused to dismiss a challenge to a provision of the law that authorizes district attorneys to access medical records relating to abortions. ACLU of Georgia issued a press release announcing the decision. 

Court Gives Guidance On Assessing Whether Parents Had Sincerely Held Religious Belief Opposing Vaccination

In In the Interest of C.C., (GA Sup. Ct., Aug. 23, 2022), the Georgia Supreme Court gave guidance to a Juvenile Court on how to determine whether parents' objections to vaccinating their children (who were now in custody of the state) are based on a sincerely held religious belief. The court said in part:

Even if the Chandlers do not “observe a particular religion” or attend church consistently, and even if their objection to vaccination is partly secular, they may still be able to identify a religious belief that they sincerely hold and that would be violated by the vaccination of their children.... The juvenile court’s sincerity finding apparently rested at least in part on an assumption to the contrary; this prevents us from affirming this ruling....

In fairness to the juvenile court, the proper standard is not easily reducible to a simple formula; accordingly, we offer the following guidance.... Ultimately, the juvenile court must determine whether the Chandlers’ religious objection to the vaccination of their children is “truly held.” ... The court should “sh[y] away from attempting to gauge how central a sincerely held belief is to the believer’s religion.” And it must bear in mind that “a belief can be both secular and religious. The categories are not mutually exclusive.”...

The juvenile court can weigh various factors, including ... how long the Chandlers have asserted their professed religious belief, how much they know about it, and their reliance on “religious literature and teachings supporting the belief[.]” ... Whether the Chandlers have wavered in their actions related to vaccination “also appears to be relevant[.]”... But the juvenile court should also be cautious in affording more than a little weight to evidence that the Chandlers were inconsistent in visibly living out their religious beliefs; for example, the frequency of the family’s church attendance....

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.

Fetus Now A Deductible Dependent On Georgia Income Tax Return

Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act amends the definition of "natural person" in Georgia's statutes to mean "any human being including an unborn child". Last month, the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Act. In light of that, Georgia's Department of Revenue has issued Guidance related to House Bill 481, Living Infants and Fairness Equality (LIFE) Act (Aug. 1, 2022), reading in part:

[T]he Department will recognize any unborn child with a detectable human heartbeat, as defined in O.C.G.A. § 1-2-1, as eligible for the Georgia individual income tax dependent exemption. The 11th Circuit’s ruling made HB 481’s amendment to O.C.G.A § 48-7-26(a), adding an unborn child with a detectable heartbeat to the definition of dependent, effective as of the date of the court’s ruling, which was July 20, 2022.

[Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

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.

11th Circuit Upholds Georgia's LIFE Act

In Sistersong Women of Reproductive Justice Collective v. Governor of State of Georgia, (11th Cir., July 20, 2022), the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of Georgia's Living Infants Fairness and Equality (LIFE) Act which amends the definition of "natural person" in Georgia's statutes to mean "any human being including an unborn child". It also prohibits abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected. The court said in part:

The district court entered a summary judgment for the abortionists challenging the Georgia law and permanently enjoined state officials from enforcing it. But intervening Supreme Court precedent, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), makes clear that no right to abortion exists under the Constitution, so Georgia may prohibit them. And the expanded definition of natural person is not vague on its face. We vacate the injunction, reverse the judgment in favor of the abortionists, and remand with instructions to enter judgment in favor of the state officials.

Reporting on the decision, CBS News also noted:

Normally, the ruling wouldn't take effect for weeks. But the court issued a second order Wednesday allowing the law to take effect immediately.