960 F.3d 1115
8th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Judy Doe, a member of The Satanic Temple, sued Missouri under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging the State’s informed-consent abortion law violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.
- Missouri statute requires distribution of a state-authored informed-consent booklet stating that life begins at conception and describing fetal development; women must certify they received the booklet and had the opportunity to view an ultrasound at least 24 hours before an abortion.
- Doe contends the booklet advances religiously aligned views (contrary to her Satanist beliefs) and that certifying receipt/viewing would force conduct forbidden by her religion.
- The district court dismissed both constitutional claims for failure to state a claim; Doe also attempted on appeal to advance an undue-burden claim that was not pleaded below.
- The Eighth Circuit declined to consider the unpleaded undue-burden theory and reviewed the pleaded Establishment and Free Exercise claims de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an unpleaded undue-burden claim may be considered | Doe: undue-burden follows from religious infringement and can be litigated on appeal | Mo.: claim was not pled; defendant lacked fair notice; plaintiff should have amended | Court: refused to consider because claim was not pled and defendant lacked notice |
| Establishment Clause: Does the booklet impermissibly establish religion by endorsing a view that life begins at conception? | Doe: booklet promotes religious (Catholic) dogma and endorses a religious theory of life’s beginning | Mo.: alignment with some religious beliefs is not establishment; State may express value judgments favoring life | Court: booklet does not violate Establishment Clause; mere alignment or taking sides on divisive issues is not establishing religion |
| Free Exercise: Does the certification requirement violate Doe’s religious beliefs? | Doe: mandating written certification that she received the booklet and had ultrasound access forces conduct contrary to her Satanic tenets | Mo.: the law is neutral and generally applicable and survives rational-basis review as related to legitimate state interests (informed consent) | Court: law is neutral/generally applicable and rationally related to legitimate interests; free-exercise claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (pleading requires fair notice of claims)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (upheld informed-consent measures as legitimate state interests; undue-burden framework)
- Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228 (Establishment Clause forbids official preference for a religious denomination)
- Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (alignment with religious beliefs does not alone establish religion)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (similar principle regarding law coinciding with religious observance)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (States may express respect for fetal life and adopt related policies)
- Webster v. Reprod. Health Servs., 492 U.S. 490 (States retain some authority to favor childbirth over abortion)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (test for neutrality and general applicability under Free Exercise Clause)
- Telescope Media Grp. v. Lucero, 936 F.3d 740 (standard for de novo review of complaint and discussion of hybrid-rights theory)
- Gallagher v. City of Clayton, 699 F.3d 1013 (neutral laws of general applicability reviewed under rational-basis standard)