211 N.E.3d 957
Ind.2023Background
- After Dobbs, the Indiana General Assembly enacted Senate Bill 1, broadly banning abortion with limited exceptions (life/serious health risk, lethal fetal anomaly, rape/incest).
- Plaintiffs (mostly abortion providers) sued in Monroe Circuit Court seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement on state constitutional grounds (Article I, §1 among others).
- The trial court concluded Article I, §1 is judicially enforceable and enjoined enforcement pending trial.
- Indiana appealed directly to the Indiana Supreme Court; the appeal focused on standing, whether Article I, §1 is judicially enforceable, and the scope of any abortion-related liberty right under that provision.
- The Indiana Supreme Court held providers have standing and that Article I, §1 is judicially enforceable, but ruled §1 protects only an abortion necessary to save the woman’s life or to prevent a serious health risk and therefore vacated the facial injunction because SB 1 can be enforced consistent with those limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Providers argued they face imminent criminal/regulatory injury from SB 1 and so may sue. | State argued providers assert patients' rights and thus lack third-party standing. | Providers have standing because SB 1 criminalizes their work and threatens direct injury. |
| Enforceability of Art. I §1 | §1 secures judicially enforceable fundamental rights (liberty) including reproductive decisions. | §1 is a declaratory, non-justiciable political pronouncement not meant for judicial enforcement. | §1 is a Lockean natural-rights guarantee and is judicially enforceable under Indiana precedent. |
| Scope of liberty re: abortion | §1 protects a broad, fundamental right to abortion (comparable to pre-Dobbs Roe/Casey framework). | §1 does not create a fundamental right to abortion in all circumstances; the legislature has discretion to protect prenatal life. | §1 protects abortion necessary to save life or prevent serious health risk, but not a broader, absolute right to abortion; legislature retains discretion otherwise. |
| Facial challenge / preliminary injunction | Plaintiffs sought a facial injunction, arguing SB 1 cannot be enforced consistent with §1 in any circumstance. | State argued facial challenge fails because SB 1 contains constitutionally sufficient exceptions and is presumptively constitutional. | Facial challenge failed: because SB 1 can be constitutionally applied in at least some circumstances (life/serious health risk), Plaintiffs lacked reasonable likelihood of success and injunction was vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (U.S. 2022) (overruled Roe/Casey and returned abortion regulation to states)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (replaced trimester framework with undue-burden standard)
- Cheaney v. State, 285 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 1972) (Indiana case addressing abortion claim under federal constitutional law)
- Clinic for Women, Inc. v. Brizzi, 837 N.E.2d 973 (Ind. 2005) (Indiana Supreme Court addressed state-constitutional abortion claims and declined to decide a broad §1 abortion right)
- Price v. State, 622 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. 1993) (describes unenumerated rights under Article I, §1 and interpretive methodology)
- Dep’t of Fin. Insts. v. Holt, 108 N.E.2d 629 (Ind. 1952) (police-power test: laws must not be arbitrary or beyond necessities of the case)