BURNS v. CLINE
2016 OK 99
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Larry A. Burns, D.O., challenged Senate Bill No. 642 (SB 642, 2015 Okla. Sess. Laws c. 387) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the statute violated Oklahoma Constitution art. 5, § 57 (the single-subject rule).
- SB 642 amended an existing minor-consent/penalty provision and added three new provisions: (1) OSBI forensic protocol/preservation duties for statutory-rape investigations; (2) licensure/inspection authority for abortion facilities vested in the State Department/Commissioner of Health; and (3) broad criminal and civil penalties (including felony exposure and fines up to $100,000) for violations of abortion-related statutes and regulations.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction, stayed enforcement, and the district court granted summary judgment for defendants; this appeal followed and the Supreme Court retained the matter.
- The central legal question was whether SB 642 embraces only one subject "clearly expressed in its title," i.e., whether its provisions are germane, relative, and cognate to a single, readily apparent theme, or instead constitute impermissible logrolling or delegation to multiple agencies.
- The majority concluded the four sections were so unrelated and expansive (including delegation to multiple agencies) that legislators could have been presented an unconstitutional all‑or‑nothing choice; it held SB 642 violated the single‑subject rule and is void.
- A concurrence (Combs, V.C.J., joined by three justices) agreed SB 642 violated art. 5, § 57 and additionally argued the law likely places undue burdens on abortion access under U.S. Supreme Court precedents (Casey and Hellerstedt).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 642 violates Oklahoma's single‑subject rule (art. 5, § 57) | Burns: the bill contains multiple unrelated provisions imposing duties on different agencies and creating disparate penalties, producing an "all‑or‑nothing" choice and logrolling | State: provisions are germane to protecting women's reproductive health or are part of comprehensive legislation concerning abortion regulation | Held: SB 642 violates the single‑subject rule; provisions not sufficiently germane, and delegation to multiple agencies reinforced the defect |
| Whether being "comprehensive" saves multiple provisions from single‑subject challenge | Burns: comprehensiveness does not cure unrelated provisions that coerce votes | State: comprehensive legislation precedent allows related provisions in one bill | Held: Court rejects that comprehensiveness alone is dispositive; focus is on whether parts share a common, closely‑akin purpose and avoid misleading/forced choices |
| Whether delegation to multiple agencies affects single‑subject analysis | Burns: delegating disparate duties to OSBI, OSDH, and prosecutors demonstrates multiple subjects | State: agency duties are all aimed at reproductive‑health enforcement | Held: Delegation to different agencies supports conclusion the bill embraces multiple, unrelated subjects |
| (Concurring) Whether SB 642 imposes an undue burden on abortion access under federal law | Burns (in concurrence): argued the bill's regulatory burdens and penalties impede access | State: not addressed in majority; defendants maintained statutes are lawful regulations | Concurrence: Would hold SB 642 also likely imposes an undue burden under Casey/Hellerstedt, reinforcing unconstitutionality |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (2013 OK 37) (standards for reviewing legislative constitutionality)
- Fent v. Fallin, 315 P.3d 1023 (2013 OK 107) (purpose of single‑subject rule: transparency and prevent logrolling)
- Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Auth. v. State ex rel., 214 P.3d 799 (2009 OK 15) (provisions must be germane, relative, and cognate; delegation to multiple agencies relevant)
- Nova Health Systems v. Edmondson, 233 P.3d 380 (2010 OK 21) (single‑subject rule invalidates bills that create an all‑or‑nothing choice despite topical connections)
- Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (2011 OK 53) (test focuses on whether proposal is misleading or forces an unpalatable choice)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (2013 OK 108) (comprehensive legislation may be constitutional if parts share a closely‑akin theme; number of acts not dispositive)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (federal undue‑burden standard for abortion regulation)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (requirement that benefits of abortion regulations justify their burdens)
- Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, 368 P.3d 1278 (2016 OK 17) (prior Oklahoma litigation addressing medication‑abortion regulation and statutory frameworks)