Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.
139 S. Ct. 1780
SCOTUS2019Background
- Indiana enacted laws (2016) changing disposal of fetal remains and banning abortions performed "knowingly" for reasons of fetal sex, race, or disability. The disposal law reclassifies fetal remains so they cannot be incinerated as infectious/pathological waste and authorizes simultaneous cremation in limited circumstances; it preserves a woman’s statutory right to determine final disposition.
- Planned Parenthood challenged both statutes in federal court in Indiana; the District Court enjoined the sex-/race-/disability-selection ban and the disposal provision. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying (and resolving under) rational-basis review for the disposal law and holding it irrational.
- Indiana petitioned the Supreme Court. The Court granted certiorari limited to the disposal-question, summarily reversed the Seventh Circuit as to that question, and denied certiorari as to the sex-/race-/disability-selection ban to allow further percolation.
- The Supreme Court held that a State has a legitimate interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains and that Indiana’s disposal law is rationally related to that interest; it applied rational-basis review and upheld the law.
- The Court stressed respondents did not argue the disposal law imposed an "undue burden" on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, so the opinion did not address undue-burden/heightened scrutiny doctrines under Casey/Whole Woman’s Health.
- Justices Thomas and Ginsburg wrote separately: Thomas concurred (and urged future consideration of anti-eugenics abortion laws); Ginsburg concurred in part and dissented in part, arguing heightened review might apply and that summary reversal was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Indiana's fetal-remains disposal law | Law is irrational and (in district/Seventh Cir.) fails rational-basis; alternatively, it may impose an undue burden on abortion rights | State has legitimate interest in humane/dignified disposal; law is rationally related to that interest | Supreme Court: State interest legitimate; law survives rational-basis review and is upheld (Seventh Cir. reversed on this question) |
| Whether disposal regulation implicates undue-burden/heightened scrutiny under Casey/Whole Woman's Health | Disposal regulation may create burdens (cost, trauma) on women and thus require heightened review | Respondents did not press an undue-burden claim; State contends rational-basis is appropriate | Court did not decide; noted parties did not argue undue burden and therefore expressed no view on that standard |
| Constitutionality of banning abortions performed "knowingly" for sex, race, or disability reasons | Such a ban conflicts with constitutional abortion rights (argued by Planned Parenthood below) | State argues it may prohibit eugenic uses of abortion and protect against discrimination and other harms | Supreme Court denied certiorari on this question to allow more courts to address it; no ruling on merits |
| Proper scope of Court review when only one side's chosen standard was litigated | Plaintiffs strategically invoked rational-basis review, potentially limiting review | State sought relief under that posture; Court must generally decide the question presented | Court reversed under rational-basis because respondents litigated on that standard; concurrence/dissent dispute whether summary reversal was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron v. Akron Ctr. for Reprod. Health, 462 U.S. 416 (acknowledging State interest in proper disposal of fetal remains)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (framework on abortion rights and undue-burden test)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (standard for rational-basis/substantive-due-process discussion)
- Armour v. Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (rational-basis review principles; challenger bears burden to negative conceivable bases)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (standards for heightened review under undue-burden framework referenced by concurrence/dissent)
- Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (historical context on eugenics and state regulation discussed in concurrence)