Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, 368 P.3d 1278

Background

In 2011 Oklahoma enacted H.B. 1970 banning off-label use of mifepristone (Mifeprex) and misoprostol for abortion; the Oklahoma Supreme Court initially struck it down (Cline I) and later answered certified questions in Cline II about the statute's scope.
In 2014 the Legislature enacted H.B. 2684 to address Cline II: it (1) incorporates the FDA Mifeprex final printed labeling (FPL) as the only permissible regimen for medication abortions using Mifeprex, misoprostol, and (with an ectopic exception) methotrexate; (2) prohibits specified off-label uses; and (3) creates civil/disciplinary liability for violations.
Plaintiffs (Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Nova Health Systems) sued, challenging H.B. 2684 on multiple grounds; the district court ruled H.B. 2684 an unconstitutional special law under Art. V, § 59.
On appeal the Oklahoma Supreme Court limited review to two questions: whether H.B. 2684 unlawfully delegates legislative power to the FDA (Art. V, § 1) and whether it is an unconstitutional special law (Art. V, § 59).
The Court construed H.B. 2684 as applying only to three currently known abortion-inducing drugs (mifepristone, misoprostol, methotrexate when used for abortion) and as incorporating the current Mifeprex FPL; it held the statute does not vest policymaking authority in the FDA and is a permissible special law.
Judgment: the district court's judgment was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of other state and federal constitutional claims not before the Court; the prior stay on enforcement remained in place pending further litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether H.B. 2684 improperly delegates legislative authority to the FDA (Art. V §1)	H.B. 2684 hands legislative/policy power to the FDA by making Oklahoma law dependent on the FDA FPL	H.B. 2684 only incorporates the current Mifeprex FPL as the exclusive permissible regimen for three named drugs and does not permit future FDA action to change Oklahoma law	Court: No improper delegation — statute limits scope to the current Mifeprex FPL and the three named drugs, so it does not cede legislative policy to the FDA
Whether H.B. 2684 violates the special-law prohibition (Art. V §59)	Law is underinclusive/special because it singles out Mifeprex and misoprostol (and patients/providers) for unique treatment rather than applying generally to drugs or medical practice	Law targets a specific, demonstrably dangerous off-label use (three drugs used to induce abortions); general law would be infeasible and overbroad	Court: H.B. 2684 is a special law but is permissible — legislative findings show a reasonable and substantial relation between the classification and the public-health objective

Key Cases Cited

Okla. Coal. for Reprod. Justice v. Cline, 292 P.3d 27 (Okla. 2012) (Cline I) (state court struck down prior statute under federal undue-burden analysis)
Cline v. Okla. Coal. for Reprod. Justice, 313 P.3d 253 (Okla. 2013) (Cline II) (Oklahoma Supreme Court answered certified questions about scope of H.B. 1970/FDA labeling)
Reynolds v. Porter, 760 P.2d 816 (Okla. 1988) (sets three-prong test for evaluating whether a statute is an unconstitutional special law)
City of Okla. City v. State ex rel. Okla. Dept. of Labor, 918 P.2d 26 (Okla. 1995) (invalidated statute that delegated determination of prevailing wages to federal agency)
In re Initiative Petition No. 366, 46 P.3d 123 (Okla. 2002) (initiative invalid where implementing bodies given unfettered discretion without legislative standards)
Democratic Party of Okla. v. Estep, 652 P.2d 271 (Okla. 1982) (invalidated statute for impermissible delegation where agency had unfettered rulemaking authority)
Liddell v. Heavner, 180 P.3d 1191 (Okla. 2008) (statutory interpretation rules and presumption of constitutionality)