Ohio Court Issues TRO Against Bill Barring Gender-Affirming Care for Minors and Transgender Women on Sports Teams

 In Moe v. Yost, (OH Com. Pl., April 16, 2024), an Ohio state trial court issued a 14-day temporary restraining order preventing the state from enforcing House Bill 68 which enacted the Saving Ohio Adolescents from Experimentation (SAFE) Act barring gender transition services for minors and the Save Women's Sports Act that barred transgender women from competing on women's sports teams. (See prior posting.) The bill was set to take effect on April 24. The court concluded that the bill likely violates the provision in the Ohio Constitution that states: "No bill shall contain more than one subject..." The ACLU says that it "will continue the litigation to ultimately obtain a permanent injunction on behalf of Ohio families whose children are at risk of losing critical life-saving medical care." National Review reports on the decision.

5th Circuit Denies Further Relief to Native American Church Objecting to Park Modifications

As previously reported, last year a Texas federal district court held that members of the Lipam-Apache Native American Church should be given access for religious services to a point on the San Antonio River which is a Sacred Site for them.  The court refused to grant plaintiffs' request that the proposed improvements to the park in which the Sacred Site is located be limited so that the spiritual ecology of the Sacred Area would be preserved by minimizing tree removal and allowing cormorants to nest. Plaintiffs appealed the injunction denials.  In Perez v. City of San Antonio, (5th Cir., April 11, 2024), the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court. Rejecting appellants' claim under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the court said in part:

In analyzing Appellants’ contention that the destruction of the tree canopies, where cormorants nest, and the driving away of the cormorants themselves will burden their religions, we consider whether the presupposed burden is real and significant....

Appellants continue to have virtually unlimited access to the Park for religious and cultural purposes. Appellants’ reverence of the cormorants as sacred genesis creatures from the Sacred Area is not implicated here because the City’s rookery management program does not directly dictate or regulate the cormorants’ nesting habits, migration, or Park visitation. For example, the record shows that, regardless of the rookery management program, no cormorants, due to their migration patterns, inhabit the area for extended periods of time each year. Moreover, the City’s rookery management program does not substantially burden Appellants’ religious beliefs because cormorants can still nest elsewhere in the 343-acre Park or nearby. The deterrent activities are deployed only within the two-acre Project Area and only to persuade the birds to nest elsewhere....

The record indicates that various areas of the Park “become nearly unusable for 10 months of the year due to the bird density/habitat.”...

 [T]he City’s tree removal plan is narrowly tailored to achieve the City’s compelling governmental interest of making the Project Area safe for visitors to the Park....

Appellants assert that the City’s plan violates the religious-service protections provision of the Texas Constitution....

Even accepting that the “relatively new provision bars any government action that prohibits or limits religious services,” Appellants do not sufficiently brief the question of whether a compelled “preservation of spiritual ecology” was envisioned in the statute’s definition of a “religious service” protected from state sanctioned prohibitions or limitations.

Judge Higginson dissented in part, contending that the city should have done more to accommodate plaintiffs as to tree removal and anti-nesting matters.

Louisiana Supreme Court: Revival of Barred Sex Abuse Claims Violates Priest's Rights Under State Constitution

 In Bienvenu v. Defendant 1, (LA Sup. Ct., March 22, 2024), the Louisiana Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision held that a 2021 Louisiana statute that revived child sex abuse claims that had previously been time barred violates the Louisiana Constitution. The statute gave victims a 3-year window to file claims. The court said in part:

Essentially, plaintiffs alleged they were sexually molested by a Roman Catholic priest at various times between 1971 and 1979.   At the time of the alleged abuse, plaintiffs ranged in ages from eight to fourteen.  

Defendants responded by filing several exceptions, including a peremptory exception of prescription, arguing that plaintiffs’ claims were subject to the general one-year liberative prescriptive period for delictual actions under former La. Civ. Code art. 3536(1)....

The definite nature of accrued prescription has been repeatedly recognized in our jurisprudence, which makes it clear that, unlike statutes of limitations at common law, under civilian principles, prescriptive periods that have accrued act to extinguish the civil obligation to which they apply....

Guided by Louisiana’s civil law tradition, we decline to upend nearly a half of a century’s jurisprudence that recognizes the unique nature of vested rights associated with liberative prescription, which inure to the benefit of both plaintiffs (protecting an accrued cause of action) and defendants (protecting a defense of accrued liberative prescription).  Therefore, despite the sickening  and despicable factual allegations in this case, we must conclude that La. R.S. 9:2800.9, as amended by the revival provisions, cannot be retroactively applied to revive plaintiffs’ prescribed causes of action.  To find otherwise would divest defendants of their vested right to plead prescription in violation of Art. I, Section 2 of the Louisiana Constitution.

However the court remanded the case for the trial court to determine whether the one-year prescriptive period had tolled.

Justice Crichton filed a concurring opinion, as did Justice Griffin.

Chief Justice Weimer dissented, saying in part:

Given Louisiana’s legitimate interest in protecting its citizens who were sexually abused as minors and in providing them with the ability to seek redress in the courts, and the narrowly tailored nature of the relief provided–the legislation revives, for a short period of time, for a narrow category of tort victims, actions otherwise prescribed–I would find that the revival provision is consistent with the due process guarantee.  Under the due process clause, no rights–not even fundamental ones–are absolute.  The due process clause simply offers protection from arbitrary and unreasonable action by the government.  The revival provision at issue is not arbitrary (in fact, in this case it is arguable that the “arbitrary and unreasonable” conduct was the alleged sexual abuse perpetrated upon children by those in society who were placed in positions of authority).  And, the provision has been demonstrated to have a substantial relationship to public safety, morals and welfare.

Justice Crain also filed a dissenting opinion. Justice McCallum dissented without opinion.

Balls and Strikes reported on the decision. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]

Florida Supreme Court Clears Abortion Rights Proposal for November Ballot

 In Advisory Opinion to the Attorney General re: Limiting Government Interference with Abortion, (FL Sup. Ct., April 1, 2024), the Florida Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, rejected challenges to placing a proposed abortion rights constitutional amendment on the November ballot. The proposed amendment provides:

Limiting government interference with abortion.—Except as provided in Article X, Section 22, no law shall prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion before viability or when necessary to protect the patient’s health, as determined by the patient’s healthcare provider.

The court said in part:

We decline to adopt a standard that would effectively vest us with the power to bar an amendment from the ballot because of a supposed ambiguity in the text of the amendment.  We decline to encroach on the prerogative to amend their constitution that the people have reserved to themselves.

Chief Justice Muniz filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Canaday and Couriel concur, saying in part:

... [Q]uestions of justice are appropriately at the heart of the voters’ assessment of a proposed amendment like the one under review.  With its reference to the existence of “inalienable rights” in all persons, our constitution’s Declaration of Rights assumes a pre-constitutional, objective moral reality that demands our respect—indeed, a moral order that government exists to protect.  The proposed amendment would constitutionalize restrictions on the people’s authority to use law to protect an entire class of human beings from private harm.  It would cast into doubt the people’s authority even to enact protections that are prudent, compassionate, and mindful of the complexities involved.  Under our system of government, it is up to the voters—not this Court—to decide whether such a rule is consistent with the deepest commitments of our political community.

Justice Grosshans filed a dissenting opinion in which Justic Sasso concurs. Justice Francis filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Sasso filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Grosshans and Francis concur, saying in part:

I agree with the majority that, at a very high level, the voters will understand that this amendment creates a broad right to abortion in Florida.  However, our precedent has consistently required that the summary explain more than the amendment’s general aim.  Indeed, we have said that ballot summaries must explain the “material legal effect,” so that the electorate is advised of the “true meaning, and ramifications, of an amendment” and is thereby “adequately informed.” 

The summary here does none of this.

In a separate decision yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court held that the state Constitution's Privacy Clause does not protect abortion rights. (See prior posting.) Orlando Sentinel reports on the two decisions.

Montana Supreme Court Says AG Wrongly Rejected Language of Reproductive Rights Initiative

In Montanans Securing Reproductive Rights v. Knudson,(MT Sup. Ct., March 18, 2024), the Montana Supreme Court held that the state Attorney General was incorrect in in concluding that a proposed reproductive rights ballot initiative violates the separate vote requirement of the Montana Constitution. It also held that the Attorney General lacked authority to append a fiscal statement to the initiative. The court ordered the Attorney General to prepare a ballot statement for the initiative and forward it to the Secretary of State. 

Justice McKinnon filed a concurring opinion. Justice Rice filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

I believe it is clear that the provisions of CI-14 are not readily understood, have effects that are concealed, and would result in voter confusion this review is designed to prevent.

(See prior related posting.) Montana Free Press reports on the decision. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

State Constitutional Challenge to Abortion Restrictions Filed in Wisconsin Supreme Court

Last year in Kaul v. Urmanski, (WI Cir. Ct., Dec. 5, 2023), a Wisconsin state trial court held that Wisconsin Statute §940.04 which prohibits destroying the life of an unborn child applies only to feticide, and not to consensual abortions. That case is now on appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood filed a petition with the Wisconsin Supreme Court asking it to take original jurisdiction over a state constitutional challenge to §940.04. It contends that the Court should decide the constitutional question before it engages in the statutory interpretation issue presented in the Kaul case. The petition (full text) in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin v. Linton, (WI Sup.Ct., filed 2/22/2024), contends that Wisconsin Statute §940.04, if interpreted to ban abortions in all cases except to save the life of the mother, violates Art. I, Sec. 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. The Petition asserts that the abortion ban (enacted in the mid 19th century) violates the right to bodily integrity, autonomy and self-determination; the physician's and the patient's right to equal protection, and the physician's right to practice his or her profession. Courthouse News Service reports on Planned Parenthood's petition.

Arkansas AG Certifies Abortion Amendment Proposal; Signature Collection May Begin

After rejecting two prior proposals as being unclear or misleading (1 , 2 ) on Tuesday, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin certified the popular name and ballot title for a proposed constitutional amendment that, if adopted by voters, will liberalize abortion rules in Arkansas.  The ballot proposal describes the changes as follows in part:

... [T]his amendment changes Arkansas law by amending the Arkansas Constitution to provide that the government of the State of Arkansas, its officers, or its political subdivisions shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services (1) in cases of rape, (2) in cases of incest, (3) in the event of a fatal fetal anomaly, or (4) when, in a physician’s good-faith medical judgment, abortion services are needed to protect a pregnant female’s life or to protect a pregnant female from a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury; to provide that the government of the State of Arkansas, its officers, or its political subdivisions shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization....

As reported by the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, the Attorney General's approval allows proponents to begin to collect 90,704 signatures needed to get the proposal on the November 2024 ballot.

Montana AG Says Abortion Rights Initiative Cannot Go on Ballot

In a Memorandum dated January 16, Montana's Attorney General has ruled that proponents of an abortion rights amendment to the Montana Constitution may not begin to collect signatures to get the proposal on the ballot because the proposal is legally insufficient. (Full text of AG's ruling.) Montana's Supreme Court in Armstrong v. State (1999) has previously held that the state Constitution's privacy provisions protect the right to pre-viability abortion. The proposed Amendment as summarized by the Secretary of State would explicitly protect that right, would assure the right to abortion even post-viability when necessary to protect the pregnant person's life or health, and would prohibit the state from taking adverse action against patients, healthcare providers or anyone assisting someone in obtaining reproductive care. The Attorney General's Memorandum concludes that the proposed Amendment "logrolls multiple distinct political choices into a single initiative," in violation of the separate-vote provision of the state Constitution. Montana Free Press reporting on the Attorney General's action, says that Amendment proponents plan to challenge the Attorney General's action in court. [Thanks to Thomas Rutledge for the lead.]

Virginia Supreme Court Rules For Teacher Who Refused To Use Student's Preferred Pronouns

In Vlaming v. West Point School Board, (VA Sup. Ct., Dec. 14, 2023), the Virginia Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, held that a teacher who was fired after refusing for religious reasons to use masculine pronouns in referring to a biologically female student has a claim for violation of the free exercise provisions of the Virginia state Constitution. The majority, in a 73-page opinion, held that the Virginia Constitution requires greater accommodation than does the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution when a neutral law of generally applicability conflicts with a religious belief.  The majority said in part:

[W]e hold that in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the constitutional right to free exercise of religion is among the “natural and unalienable rights of mankind,” ... and that “overt acts against peace and good order,”  correctly defines the limiting principle for this right and establishes the duty of government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.

The majority also held that plaintiff had adequately stated a claim under the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a claim for violation of the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution. The majority said in part:

Because the gravamen of Vlaming’s free-speech claims involves an allegation of compelled speech on an ideological subject, we hold that the circuit court erred when it dismissed Vlaming’s free-speech claims....

At the time that the School Board fired Vlaming, no clearly established law — whether constitutional, statutory, or regulatory — put a teacher on notice that not using third-person pronouns in addition to preferred names constituted an unlawful act of discrimination against transgender students. If the government truly means to compel speech, the compulsion must be clear and direct.

Finally the majority concluded that plaintiff adequately alleged that the School Board had breached his contract.

Justice Powell, joined by Chief Justice Goodwyn concurred in part, saying in part:

I write separately to clarify that, in my opinion, the proper test to evaluate a free exercise claim under Article I, Section 16 of the Virginia Constitution is traditional strict scrutiny as expressed in Sherbert v. Verner.... I disagree with the majority’s conclusion “that ‘overt acts against peace and good order,’ ... correctly defines the limiting principle for this right [in Article I, Section 16] and establishes the duty of the government to accommodate religious liberties that do not transgress these limits.”

Justice Mann filed a 64-page opinion dissenting in part. He said in part:

I dissent from the majority’s analysis and interpretation of Article I, Section 16.... The majority’s proposed limiting principle for the free exercise provision ... is not supported by the plain words of our Constitution, its history, our legal precedent, or legislative action of the General Assembly. I also dissent with respect to the majority’s rulings on Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims. Regarding Vlaming’s free-exercise claim, the majority establishes a sweeping super scrutiny standard with the potential to shield any person’s objection to practically any policy or law by claiming a religious justification for their failure to follow either.,,, 

Where a claimant alleges that the government was hostile towards his religious free exercise or that the government did not neutrally apply the law, the reviewing court should apply strict scrutiny to determine whether the government’s enforcement was narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest....

As for Vlaming’s free speech and due process claims, the facts speak for themselves. Under well-established federal precedent, Vlaming’s allegations as pleaded establish that Vlaming was (1) a public employee engaged in curricular speech pursuant to his official job duties, (2) not speaking as a private citizen on a matter of public concern; and (3) had ample notice that his refusal to use Doe’s preferred pronouns was a violation of the School Board’s policies, and the School Board provided him an opportunity to be heard on his discipline.... 

Justice Powell and Chief Justice Goodwyn joined the portions of Justice Mann's opinion that relate to the Virginia Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the free speech and due process provisions of the Virginia Constitution.

Court Disqualifies Proposed Nevada Reproductive Freedom Amendment From 2024 Ballot

In Washington v. Aguilar, (NV Dist. Ct., Nov. 21, 2023), a Nevada state trial court held that an Initiative Petition proposing a Reproductive Freedom Constitutional Amendment could not be placed on the 2024 ballot. The court held that the initiative proposal violates the single subject rule, contains a misleading description of the Amendment's effect and contains an unfunded mandate.  The court said in part:

This Court agrees with Plaintiffs that the Petition embraces a multitude of subjects that amount to logrolling. Subsection 1, alone, embraces the following subjects: prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, vasectomy, tubal ligation, abortion, abortion care, management of a miscarriage, and infertility care. Subsection 1 purportedly creates a “fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” but there is no limiting language in that section to circumscribe that right such that the section embraces a single and articulable subject....

The court found the description of the Amendment misleading because "it fails to mention that the law will bar the State from prosecuting, fining, or regulating any miscarriage or stillbirth"; it fails to mention that a medical provider can order a late term abortion to protect the pregnant person's health.; and it fails to explain that it affects equality and equal protection.

Finally, the court found that the proposed Amendment creates an unfunded mandate because a Panel or Board would need to be created to determine whether a healthcare provider acted within the standard of care.

Nevada Independent reports on the decision.

Oklahoma Supreme Court Temporarily Enjoins 3 Laws Restricting Abortions

In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond, (OK Sup. Ct, Nov. 14, 2023), the Oklahoma Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision directed the trial court to issue a temporary injunction preventing enforcement of three statutes that impose regulatory requirements on abortions while challenges to the laws proceed. The court's majority opinion says in part:

[In Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice v. Drummond I] we held that the Oklahoma Constitution protects a limited right to an abortion, i.e., one that creates an inherent right of the mother to terminate a pregnancy when necessary to preserve her life.... This ... was defined to mean: a woman has an inherent right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if, at any point in the pregnancy, the woman's physician has determined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability that the continuation of the pregnancy will endanger the woman's life due to the pregnancy itself or due to a medical condition that the woman is either currently suffering from or likely to suffer from during the pregnancy.... We made no ruling on whether the Oklahoma Constitution provides a right to an elective termination of a pregnancy....

H.B. 1904 provides a new requirement that a physician who performs an abortion must be board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology. S.B. 779 requires a physician who is certified to provide an abortion-inducing drug either to have admitting privileges at a hospital in the county or contiguous to the county where the abortion-inducing drug was administered or to have a written agreement with an associated physician in such location. S.B. 778 requires an Ultrasound be performed at least 72 hours prior to providing an abortion-inducing drug, but it does make an exception if such requirement would pose a greater risk of death or impairment.....

The clear weight of the evidence presented showed the apparent effect of the three Acts would place unnecessary burdens on the lawful termination of a pregnancy....

Maintaining the status quo would further the public interest of protecting a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy in order to preserve her life....

A concurring opinion and four dissenting opinions were filed. A dissent by Chief Justice Kane, joined by Justice Kuehn, says in part:

The constitutional analysis undertaken by the majority continues to omit the weighing of the rights and interests of the unborn. Any analysis of an abortion statute that proceeds under the proposition that the life of the unborn is unworthy of consideration is defective. In a separate concurring writing, my colleague makes the identical point as to the life of the mother. I completely agree with my colleague on this. However, the interests of the mother were the only interests considered by the majority- the rights of the unborn remain unheard.

AP reports on the decision.

Anti-Abortion Legislators in Ohio Will Seek to Remove Jurisdiction of Courts to Interpret New Constitutional Amendment

 As previously reported, abortion opponents in Ohio have taken several approaches in their unsuccessful attempt to prevent the adoption of a reproductive rights amendment to the Ohio Constitution. First they unsuccessfully attempted to amend the state constitution to increase the percentage of voters needed to adopt a constitutional amendment.  Then the state Ballot board adopted a description of the proposed amendment that was seen as painting the amendment in a less favorable light.  Nevertheless, earlier this week voters adopted the amendment by a vote of 56.6% to 43.4%.  Several legislators now say they will attempt to remove jurisdiction from Ohio courts to interpret the new amendment.  In a November 9 press release from the state legislature's Republican Newsroom, Republican legislators said in part:

“Foreign billionaires don't get to make Ohio laws,” said Jennifer Gross (R-West Chester), pointing to millions from billionaires outside America that helped fund Issue 1. Gross added, “This is foreign election interference, and it will not stand.”...

Representative Beth Lear (R-Galena) stated, “No amendment can overturn the God given rights with which we were born.”

To prevent mischief by pro-abortion courts with Issue 1, Ohio legislators will consider removing jurisdiction from the judiciary over this ambiguous ballot initiative. The Ohio legislature alone will consider what, if any, modifications to make to existing laws based on public hearings and input from legal experts on both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ohioans Vote On Reproductive Rights Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. As used in this Section:

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

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

D. This Section is self-executing.

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

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

Court Enjoins Enforcement of Kansas Abortion Disclosure and Waiting Period Requirements

 In Hodes & Nauser MDs PA v. Kobach, (KS Dist. Ct., Oct. 30, 2023), a Kansas state trial court in a 92-page opinion issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the abortion disclosure and waiting period requirements in Kansas Woman’s-Right-to-Know Act and its Medication Abortion Reversal Amendment. The court, relying on state constitutional provisions, said in part:

The Kansas Supreme Court has previously noted that trial courts face a “heavy task” when wrestling with these issues, and this Court concurs in the observation that no easy decisions exist on what may be one of the most divisive social issues of our modern history.... Inevitably, some likely will disagree or take issue with the interim conclusions reached herein on Plaintiffs’ motion for a Temporary Injunction, whether based upon specific moral, ethical, or spiritual concerns. However, such considerations are (and must be) separate and apart from this Court’s role in evaluating the potential constitutional encroachment (or lack thereof) of the State’s efforts to impose its authority under the auspices of police power, given our state Founding Father’s emphasis on (and the primacy of) the people’s inalienable natural rights. Those constitutional guarantees include the people’s rights to make their own decisions regarding their bodies, health, family formation, and family life-decisions that can include whether to continue a pregnancy—all of which are necessary corollaries to the right of bodily autonomy. Similarly, the right to freedom of speech, whether to speak or avoid compelled speech, is also a fundamental right that our state founders held dear and enshrined in the Bill of Rights, thus, it demands protection under a strict scrutiny standard in this case....

The Court has great respect for the deeply held beliefs on either side of this contentious issue. Nevertheless, the State’s capacity to legislate pursuant to its own moral scruples is necessarily curbed by the Kansas Constitution and its Bill of Rights. The State may pick a side and viewpoint, but in doing so, it may not trespass upon the natural inalienable rights of the people. In this case, the preliminary record before the Court demonstrates that the provisions at issue invade and unconstitutionally infringe upon Kansans’ fundamental rights under Section 1 and 11 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights.

KWCH News reported on the decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NBC News reports on the decision.