MKB Management Corp. v. Wayne Stenehjem
795 F.3d 768
| 8th Cir. | 2015Background
- North Dakota enacted H.B. 1456, requiring physicians to test for a fetal heartbeat and criminalizing abortions when a detectable heartbeat is present, with exceptions for the woman’s life or health; physicians face discipline or felony liability, women face no liability.
- Plaintiffs (the only in‑state abortion clinic and its medical director) sued, seeking to enjoin the law as violating the Due Process right to pre‑viability abortion; district court granted a permanent injunction and plaintiffs moved for summary judgment.
- Plaintiffs submitted declarations from physicians stating fetal cardiac activity is detectable at ~6 weeks and viability is around 24 weeks; the State submitted a declaration asserting viability from conception based on IVF survivability of embryos outside the uterus for days.
- The district court found the State’s expert used a definition of viability inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent and concluded H.B. 1456 prohibits many pre‑viability abortions, imposing an undue burden.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo the summary judgment grant and affirmed, reasoning it was bound by Supreme Court precedent defining viability and the prohibition of pre‑viability abortion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 1456’s heartbeat‑based prohibition violates the constitutional right to pre‑viability abortion | H.B. 1456 generally bans abortions after ~6 weeks, before viability, thus imposing an undue burden in violation of Due Process | The State contends viability occurs at conception (citing IVF survivability), so the law does not bar pre‑viability abortions | Court held law generally prohibits pre‑viability abortions as Supreme Court defines viability and is therefore unconstitutional; affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs |
| Whether the State’s expert creates a genuine factual dispute about when viability occurs | Viability occurs ≈24 weeks (per plaintiffs’ experts); the State’s contrary evidence is inconsistent with controlling definition | IVF evidence shows embryonic survival outside uterus, so viability should be defined from conception | Court held the State’s expert used a different (inconsistent) definition of viability and did not create a genuine dispute of material fact |
| Whether limiting discovery to the issue of viability was proper | Plaintiffs supported limiting discovery to viability as the central issue | State challenged the discovery limitation on appeal | Court affirmed the district court’s limitation as within its discretion |
| Whether other constitutional challenges or severability should be decided | Plaintiffs raised due process and also relied on other possible claims | State raised other defenses and implementation issues | Court declined to address Equal Protection; did not decide severability (State did not argue severability) |
Key Cases Cited
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (establishing constitutional right to pre‑viability abortion and defining viability)
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (replacing trimester framework with undue‑burden standard; recognizing state interest in potential life)
- Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (assumed Casey’s principles for purposes of opinion; signaled possible reevaluation)
- Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379 (articulating attending‑physician standard for determining viability)
- Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (only the Supreme Court may overrule its precedent)
- Edwards v. Beck, 786 F.3d 1113 (8th Cir. 2015) (discussing heartbeat‑ban challenges and importance of developing record on viability)