2016 OK 17
Okla.2016Background
- H.B. 2684 (2014) amended 63 O.S. § 1-729a to restrict use of certain drugs (Mifeprex/mifepristone, misoprostol, methotrexate) for inducing abortions to the FDA-approved Mifeprex final printed label (FPL), effectively narrowing the medication-abortion window from 63 to 49 days LMP for those drugs.
- The statute includes legislative findings asserting safety risks from off-label medication-abortion protocols and states an intent not to ban all medication abortions or methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy.
- Plaintiffs (Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Nova Health Systems) sued, alleging among other claims improper delegation to the FDA and that H.B. 2684 is a prohibited special law; the district court held the law a special law and enjoined enforcement.
- The State appealed, limiting its issues on appeal to (1) whether H.B. 2684 unlawfully delegates legislative authority to the FDA and (2) whether it violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s ban on special laws (Art. V, § 59); issue-preclusion arguments based on prior Cline decisions were also addressed.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma construed the statute narrowly (applying only to the three identified drugs as used to induce abortions and to the current Mifeprex FPL), held it did not impermissibly delegate legislative power to the FDA, and upheld it as a permissible special law; it reversed the district court and remanded for consideration of other constitutional claims not before the Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-delegation: Did H.B. 2684 unlawfully delegate legislative authority to the FDA by incorporating the Mifeprex FPL? | Plaintiffs argued the statute effectively vests policy-making to the FDA (or external standards) and thus unconstitutionally delegates legislative power. | State argued H.B. 2684 only incorporates the current Mifeprex FPL for three identified drugs and does not permit future FDA actions to alter Oklahoma law. | Court held no improper delegation: statute narrowly incorporated the existing Mifeprex FPL for Mifeprex, misoprostol, and methotrexate (for abortion use) and is not altered by future FDA actions. |
| Special-law violation (Art. V, § 59): Is H.B. 2684 a prohibited special law? | Plaintiffs argued the statute is underinclusive and classifies only certain drugs and only abortion uses, making it a special law where a general law could apply. | State argued the subject (off-label use of those abortion-inducing drugs) is not reasonably susceptible to general treatment and thus a special tailored law is permissible. | Court found H.B. 2684 is a special law but concluded a general law is not applicable and that the statute is reasonably and substantially related to legitimate legislative objectives (protecting women and enforcing the FPL), so it is a permissible special law. |
| Issue preclusion from prior Cline decisions | Plaintiffs asserted certain findings in Cline II preclude relitigation of some issues. | State contended the prior decision did not decide the specific questions presented here. | Court rejected issue-preclusion claim: the particular quoted language from Cline II was unnecessary to that decision and thus not binding here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (framework for reviewing abortion regulations)
- Okla. Coal. for Reprod. Justice v. Cline, 292 P.3d 27 (Okla. 2012) (Cline I) (state-court review of H.B. 1970)
- Cline v. Okla. Coal. for Reprod. Justice, 313 P.3d 253 (Okla. 2013) (Cline II) (answering certified questions re: misoprostol and methotrexate)
- Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (three-prong test for special vs. general laws under Art. V, § 59)
- City of Oklahoma City v. State ex rel. Okla. Dept. of Labor, 918 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1995) (struck statute that delegated wage determination to federal agency)
- Tulsa Cnty. F.O.P., Lodge No. 188 v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of Tulsa Cnty., 995 P.2d 1124 (Okla. 2000) (non-delegation principles and distinction between policy-making and rule-making)