BURNS v. CLINE
2016 OK 99
| Okla. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Larry A. Burns, D.O. challenged Oklahoma Senate Bill No. 642 (SB 642), a 2015 law that amended one existing abortion-related statute and added three new sections affecting: AG/DA enforcement of minor-consent rules; OSBI forensic protocols for statutory-rape investigations; licensure/inspection authority for abortion facilities by the State Dept. of Health; and broad civil/criminal penalties for violations.
- Burns sought declaratory and injunctive relief; the Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and stayed enforcement pending resolution.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants (State officials) and denied Burns injunctive relief; Burns appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which retained the case.
- Central legal question: whether SB 642 violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s single-subject rule (Okla. Const. art. 5, §57) by combining unrelated provisions that could force legislators into an all-or-nothing vote.
- The Court reviewed prior Oklahoma precedent on the single-subject requirement and whether a bill’s comprehensiveness can justify multiple disparate provisions; it also considered concurring commentary invoking undue-burden federal precedents (Casey/Hellerstedt) as alternative grounds for invalidation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 642 violates the Oklahoma single-subject rule (art. 5, §57) | Burns: the four sections are not germane, relative, and cognate; they impose unrelated duties on different agencies and create an all-or-nothing choice (logrolling) | State: all sections relate to protecting women’s reproductive health and are enforcement/compliance mechanisms—i.e., germane; the bill is comprehensive but permissible | Held: SB 642 violates the single-subject rule; reversed district court and voided the act |
| Whether delegation to multiple state agencies in a single bill contravenes single-subject concerns | Burns: delegating distinct powers to AG/DA, OSBI, and OSDH shows disparate purposes and supports invalidation | State: delegation is appropriate as part of a comprehensive approach to reproductive-health regulation | Held: delegation to multiple agencies contributed to the finding the bill embraced different, unrelated purposes and was unconstitutional |
| Whether ‘‘comprehensive’’ legislation doctrine saves multi-part bills from single-subject challenge | Burns: comprehensiveness does not overcome the requirement that provisions be germane and not misleading | State: Coates/Thomas permit comprehensive bills covering closely related matters | Held: Court rejects broad reliance on ‘‘comprehensive’’ label; the dispositive test is whether provisions are germane and whether the bill forces an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice |
| Whether federal undue-burden precedent (Casey/Hellerstedt) independently invalidates SB 642 (concurring view) | Burns (and concurring justices): SB 642 imposes burdens, harsh penalties, and regulatory hurdles that likely create substantial obstacles to abortion access beyond any medical benefits | State: not addressed as primary holding (majority decided on state single-subject grounds) | Held (concurring): a separate concurrence would find SB 642 also likely imposes an undue burden under Casey/Hellerstedt, but the Court’s majority invalidated the law on state constitutional single-subject grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (Okla. 2013) (standard favoring validity; heavy burden on challengers)
- Oliver v. Hofmeister, 368 P.3d 1270 (Okla. 2016) (statutory construction presuming constitutionality)
- Fent v. Fallin, 315 P.3d 1023 (Okla. 2013) (single-subject rule purpose: transparency and anti-logrolling)
- Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 214 P.3d 799 (Okla. 2009) (provisions valid when germane, relative, and cognate; warning against misleading/multi-subject bills)
- Nova Health Sys. v. Edmondson, 233 P.3d 380 (Okla. 2010) (struck down multi-section abortion-related legislation as violating single-subject rule)
- Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (Okla. 2011) (test focuses on whether voters/legislators faced an unpalatable all-or-nothing choice)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013) (comprehensive statutory restructurings analyzed for a common, closely akin theme)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (federal undue-burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (U.S. 2016) (federal case applying Casey to strike provider- and facility-focused regulations that impose substantial obstacles without commensurate benefits)