233 N.E.3d 416
Ind. Ct. App.2024Background
- In 2022 Indiana enacted a near‑total ban on abortions (Indiana Code § 16‑34‑2‑1) with limited exceptions (life/serious health risk, rape/incest, lethal fetal anomaly; IVF exempted).
- Five anonymous women and Hoosier Jews for Choice sued state officials under Indiana RFRA seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a preliminary injunction to block enforcement as applied to them.
- The trial court found individual plaintiffs had standing, recognized associational standing for Hoosier Jews for Choice, held the RFRA claims ripe, certified a statewide class, and issued a broad preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the Abortion Law against the plaintiffs.
- The State appealed the injunction and the class certification; the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer and this Court consolidated the appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed justiciability and class certification, ruled plaintiffs were likely to succeed on RFRA (abortion can be religious exercise; State failed strict scrutiny because of underinclusiveness and lack of least‑restrictive means), but found the preliminary injunction overbroad and remanded for a narrower order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Associational standing for Hoosier Jews for Choice | Organization can sue for members under Hunt: members would have standing; interests germane; individual participation not required | Organization lacks standing; claims require individualized member participation | Court recognized associational standing under Hunt and found third requirement satisfied (no fatal diversity of views; injunctive relief sought) |
| Ripeness of RFRA claims (none now pregnant) | RFRA authorizes suits for likely future substantial burdens; plaintiffs show existing harm via altered sexual/reproductive behavior | Claims are speculative without an actual pregnancy; not ripe | Claims ripe: existing burdens (behavioral changes) and/or ripening seeds of controversy suffice under Indiana precedent |
| Class certification (T.R. 23) | Class defined as Indiana persons whose religious beliefs direct abortions prohibited by law; commonality, typicality, adequacy, numerosity, and (B)(2) met | Class is indefinite, subjective, and may be a fail‑safe; individual issues preclude certification | No abuse of discretion: class sufficiently definite; Rule 23(A) and 23(B)(2) requirements satisfied; adjustments can be made later |
| Preliminary injunction — religious‑exercise element | Terminating pregnancy when directed by sincere religious belief is an "exercise of religion" under RFRA | Abortion is not a religious exercise but a secular medical choice; plaintiffs' beliefs are not ritual/compulsory | Court: abortion can be religious exercise (RFRA/Smith/Burwell framework); plaintiffs likely to succeed on this element |
| Preliminary injunction — strict scrutiny (compelling interest/least restrictive means) | State cannot show application to plaintiffs is narrowly tailored; law is underinclusive (IVF, rape/incest, health exceptions) and not least restrictive | State asserts compelling interest in protecting potential life from fertilization (Cheaney) and law is justified | Court: State failed to show a compelling interest beginning at fertilization in this context and failed least‑restrictive‑means because of underinclusiveness; injunction warranted but must be narrowed |
| Scope of injunction | Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief protecting religiously directed abortions | State argued injunction was facially overbroad and violated T.R. 65(D) by barring enforcement beyond RFRA violations | Court affirmed entitlement to injunction but remanded to craft a narrowly tailored order limited to RFRA‑protected conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022) (federal Constitution does not confer right to abortion; states regulate abortion post‑Dobbs)
- Planned Parenthood Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind., Ky., Inc., 211 N.E.3d 957 (Ind. 2023) (Indiana Supreme Court rejected facial challenge; recognized state constitutional protection for abortion necessary to protect life or serious health risk)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (associational‑standing test adopted by courts)
- Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418 (2006) (RFRA burden‑shifting and scrutiny principles)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014) (‘‘exercise of religion’’ includes physical acts or abstentions; RFRA protects non‑ritual conduct)
- Holcomb v. Bray, 187 N.E.3d 1268 (Ind. 2022) (ripeness and justiciability framework referenced)
- Cheaney v. State, 285 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 1972) (historical recognition of state interest in potential life discussed and distinguished by court)