BURNS v. CLINE
2016 OK 99
Okla.2016Background
- Plaintiff Larry Burns, D.O., challenged Senate Bill No. 642 (SB 642), a 2015 Oklahoma statute that amended 63 O.S. §1-740.4b and added three new sections pertaining to abortion-related enforcement, OSBI forensic protocols, OSDH licensing/inspection of abortion facilities, and broad civil/criminal penalties.
- Burns sought declaratory and injunctive relief; the Oklahoma Supreme Court initially stayed enforcement and the case proceeded from the district court's summary judgment ruling in favor of defendants.
- The primary constitutional challenge was that SB 642 violated the Oklahoma Constitution's single-subject rule (Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57).
- SB 642: (1) expanded enforcement and injunction authority regarding minor-consent abortions; (2) authorized OSBI forensic protocols and preservation of fetal tissue for minors under 14; (3) authorized broad licensing/inspection powers for abortion facilities; and (4) imposed felony and large civil penalties for violations of abortion statutes/regulations.
- The Court reviewed whether the bill's multiple provisions were "germane, relative and cognate" to a single, clearly expressed subject and whether the bill forced an "all-or-nothing" (logrolling) choice on legislators.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Violation of single-subject rule | Burns: the four sections are unrelated, impose duties on different agencies, and create an all-or-nothing choice (logrolling) | State: provisions are germane to protecting women's reproductive health and are enforcement mechanisms for existing law; bill is comprehensive | Held: SB 642 violates art. 5, § 57—sections are not germane, related, and cognate; bill created an unconstitutional all-or-nothing choice and delegated authority to multiple agencies |
| Applicability of "comprehensive legislation" defense | Burns: comprehensiveness doesn't cure multi-subject defects | State: comprehensive bills may lawfully contain multiple related provisions (citing Coates, Thomas) | Held: Court rejects defendant's broad reading; comprehensiveness is not dispositive—parts must share a closely akin theme and not mislead voters/legislators |
| Precedent comparison to prior abortion-related statutes | Burns: similar to prior statutes struck down (e.g., Nova Health) where multiple unrelated abortion provisions were invalid | State: argued prior decisions allow broader bills when unified by theme | Held: Court finds SB 642 indistinguishable from prior invalidated multi-section abortion legislation (Nova Health) and invalid on single-subject grounds |
| Remedies and scope of review | N/A (procedural posture) Burns sought permanent injunction; Court limited to constitutionality under art. 5, § 57 | State sought summary judgment upholding the statute | Held: Trial court's summary judgment for defendants reversed; SB 642 declared unconstitutional and cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. Cox Retirement Properties, Inc., 302 P.3d 789 (Okla. 2013) (standard favoring upholding statutes; burden on challengers)
- Oliver v. Hofmeister, 368 P.3d 1270 (Okla. 2016) (statutory construction favors constitutionality)
- Fent v. Fallin, 315 P.3d 1023 (Okla. 2013) (single-subject rule purpose and transparency)
- Fent v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Capitol Improvement Authority, 214 P.3d 799 (Okla. 2009) (germaneness test: "germane, relative, and cognate" and avoiding misleading or all-or-nothing choices)
- Nova Health Sys. v. Edmondson, 233 P.3d 380 (Okla. 2010) (struck down multi-section abortion-related legislation under single-subject rule)
- Thomas v. Henry, 260 P.3d 1251 (Okla. 2011) (analysis focuses on whether provisions produce an unpalatable all-or-nothing vote)
- Coates v. Fallin, 316 P.3d 924 (Okla. 2013) (holding that multiple acts within a bill may be constitutional when unified by a closely akin theme)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (federal undue-burden standard for abortion regulations)
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016) (federal review of whether abortion regulations' benefits justify burdens imposed)