BURNS v. CLINE
2016 OK 99
| Okla. | 2016Background
- SB 642 (2015) amended one existing abortion statute and added three new, unrelated sections addressing: minor-consent enforcement, OSBI forensic rape-protocols, licensing/inspections of abortion facilities, and broad civil/criminal penalties for violations.
- Burns challenged SB 642 as violating Oklahoma Constitution art. 5, §57 (single-subject rule); this Court assumed original jurisdiction and stayed enforcement pending resolution.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants; Burns appealed and this Court retained the appeal.
- The central legal question was whether SB 642’s multiple provisions are "germane, relative, and cognate" to a single subject or instead constitute unconstitutional logrolling.
- The majority found the sections imposed duties on different agencies, raised distinct enforcement schemes, and presented an all-or-nothing choice to legislators, violating the single-subject rule.
- A concurring opinion (joined by three justices) agreed SB 642 violated art. 5, §57 and additionally argued the statute creates undue burdens on abortion access under Casey and Hellerstedt principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 642 violates Oklahoma Constitution art. 5, §57 (single-subject rule) | Burns: provisions are unrelated, impose directives on different agencies, and force a take-it-or-leave-it vote (logrolling) | State: all sections relate to "women’s reproductive health" and are germane; bill is comprehensive rather than multiplicitous | Court: Violates art. 5, §57 — sections are not germane, relative, and cognate and create an all-or-nothing choice; statute is unconstitutional and void |
| Whether delegation to multiple agencies affects single-subject analysis | Burns: delegation to OSBI, OSDH, A.G./D.A. shows unrelated purposes and multiplicity | State: delegation consistent with implementing a common purpose (protecting reproductive health) | Court: Delegation to different agencies supports finding of unrelated subjects and constitutional defect |
| Whether "comprehensive" legislation shields SB 642 from single-subject challenge | Burns: comprehensiveness does not cure unrelated provisions or logrolling | State: reliance on Coates/Thomas — comprehensive bills can still be constitutional | Court: Rejected State’s reliance; comprehensiveness is not determinative; Coates and Thomas require a common closely akin theme, which is lacking here |
| Whether SB 642 also imposes unconstitutional undue burdens on abortion under federal law | Burns (raised by concurrence): SB 642’s requirements, penalties, and facility/medication mandates substantially burden access; some provisions conflict with medical standards/FDA updates | State: not argued in majority opinion; primary defense focused on single-subject rationale | Concurrence: Would hold SB 642 also unconstitutional under federal undue-burden framework (Casey/Hellerstedt) because regulations/penalties impose substantial obstacles without commensurate health benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (establishes undue-burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (applies Casey to provider-focused regulations; benefits must justify burdens)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013) (multiple-part legislation analyzed by common, closely akin theme; not dispositive simply because bill is comprehensive)
- Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (Okla. 2011) (single-subject analysis focuses on whether proposal is misleading or forces an all-or-nothing vote)
- Nova Health Sys. v. Edmondson, 233 P.3d 380 (Okla. 2010) (struck down multi-section abortion-related act under single-subject rule)
- Fent v. Fallin, 315 P.3d 1023 (Okla. 2013) (single-subject rule discussion and purpose)
- Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority v. State ex rel., 214 P.3d 799 (Okla. 2009) (discusses logrolling and relatedness; delegation to different agencies relevant)