273 A.3d 121
R.I.2022Background
- In 2019 the Rhode Island General Assembly enacted the Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA), repealing several prior abortion-related statutes that federal courts had already found unconstitutional. Plaintiffs filed suit in Superior Court on June 19, 2019 seeking to block the RPA and to declare the repealed statutes’ effect on legal status.
- Plaintiffs consisted of three groups: (1) adult individuals alleging a deprivation of their voting rights regarding the RPA; (2) the "unborn plaintiffs" who claimed personhood/status under repealed statutes; and (3) Servants of Christ for Life (SOCL), an advocacy organization asserting derivative and organizational injuries.
- Defendants (state officials) moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The Superior Court granted dismissal for lack of standing; plaintiffs appealed, challenging standing, the court’s reaching of merits, and an asserted burden-shifting error.
- The Supreme Court reviewed only the four corners of the complaint under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard, assuming pleaded facts true, and confined merits discussion to the limited question whether the General Assembly had authority to enact the RPA.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal in all respects: all plaintiff categories lacked standing; the court rejected plaintiffs’ constructional challenges to legislative authority as not barring the RPA, but declined to make a substantive ruling on abortion rights beyond those threshold matters.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing — adult plaintiffs (voter injury) | Benson et al.: deprived of an opportunity to vote on the RPA; thus have a personalized voting injury | McKee et al.: the injury is a generalized grievance shared by all voters; no required referendum | Lack of standing — generalized grievance; no personal stake distinct from public |
| Standing — unborn plaintiffs (personhood/status) | Unborn: were "persons" under repealed statutes and lost legal rights/status when statutes were repealed | Defendants: federal constitutional law (Roe) and prior federal rulings mean unborn are not "persons" for Fourteenth Amendment protections; statutes were unconstitutional | Lack of standing — no legally cognizable personhood/status under U.S. Constitution; no concrete/imminent injury |
| Standing — SOCL (organizational & derivative claims) | SOCL: derivative claims from unborn plaintiffs and its own injury to legal relations/advocacy | Defendants: derivative claims fail if underlying plaintiffs lack standing; organizational claim is abstract with no imminent harm | Lack of standing — derivative claims fail; organizational injury is abstract and non-justiciable |
| Legislative authority to enact RPA (art.6 §10 repeal; art.1 §2 abortion sentence) | Plaintiffs: repeal of continuing-powers clause stripped plenary powers; art.1 §2’s final sentence restricts enactment of abortion-related rights without referendum | Defendants: repeal of art.6 §10 did not curtail legislature’s plenary lawmaking powers; art.1 §2 sentence limits only construction of that section and does not bar legislation like the RPA | Court: GA retains plenary power to legislate on health/safety; art.1 §2 sentence is confined to that section’s construction and did not render RPA an unconstitutional amendment; Court declined broader substantive ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (held that the Fourteenth Amendment's term "person" does not include the unborn and recognized a constitutional right to abortion)
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (acknowledged the sensitive nature of abortion controversies and refined substantive-due-process analysis)
- McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217 (R.I. 2005) (Rhode Island Supreme Court as final interpreter of state constitution; standing and justiciability principles)
- Key v. Brown University, 163 A.3d 1162 (R.I. 2017) (standing requires a concrete, particularized injury and a legal hypothesis entitling plaintiff to relief)
- Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114 (R.I. 1992) (voter-claim precedent: alleged referendum deprivation was a generalized grievance shared by all voters)
- In re Request for Advisory Opinion from House of Representatives (Coastal Resources Management Council), 961 A.2d 930 (R.I. 2008) (discussion of separation-of-powers amendments and continued plenary legislative authority)