7 F.4th 594
7th Cir.2021Background
- Planned Parenthood sued to invalidate Indiana Senate Enrolled Act No. 340, challenging two provisions: the Complications Statute (Ind. Code § 16-34-2-4.7) and the Inspection Statute; the focus on appeal is the Complications Statute.
- The Complications Statute (as amended in 2019) requires physicians, hospitals, and clinics to report enumerated physical or psychological conditions "arising from" an abortion (a 25-item list plus FDA adverse-event criteria) and prescribes criminal penalties (Class B misdemeanor) and licensing sanctions for failures to report.
- The district court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of an earlier version as unconstitutionally vague and later granted summary judgment permanently enjoining the amended Complications Statute as vague.
- The State amended the statute to make the enumerated list exclusive (removing the word "including"); defendants argued the statute will be applied using physicians’ medical judgment and by state agency guidance (e.g., but-for causation).
- The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court: it held the statute survives a pre-enforcement facial vagueness challenge because it has a "discernable core"—complications a reasonable physician would find to have arisen from an abortion—and remanded for further proceedings, while noting lingering concerns (e.g., lack of mens rea, causal and temporal ambiguity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial vagueness of Complications Statute | Statute vague on its face: "arising from" undefined; many listed conditions are non‑specific to abortion; no mens rea; criminal penalties chill and risk arbitrary enforcement | Statute has a discernable core after amendment; enforcement will rely on physician medical judgment and agency interpretation (e.g., but‑for causation); facial challenge disfavored | Reversed district court. Statute survives pre‑enforcement facial vagueness challenge because it contains a core (complications a reasonable doctor would find to have arisen from abortion); remanded. |
| Effect of absent mens rea on vagueness | Lack of scienter makes criminalization unpredictable and increases due‑process risk | Mens rea absence is concerning but not dispositive; agency interpretation and medical judgment mitigate vagueness | Court acknowledged the concern but held it does not defeat the facial challenge at this stage. |
| Vagueness of particular listed items (e.g., psychological complications; FDA adverse‑event catchall) | Items 23 and 25 are especially imprecise and ambiguous | Even if imprecise, these provisions do not strip the statute of a core; agency/medical judgment can narrow application | Court agreed those items are imprecise but held ambiguity insufficient to invalidate the statute facially. |
| Appropriateness of pre‑enforcement facial challenge | Plaintiffs assert pre‑enforcement relief needed to avoid chilling and criminal exposure | Defendants emphasize disfavor of facial challenges outside First Amendment context and urge deference to state agency/courts for clarification | Court stressed facial challenges are limited outside First Amendment; deferred many edge questions to future as‑applied proceedings or state clarification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Connally v. Gen. Const. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1926) (void‑for‑vagueness principles require criminal statutes to give fair notice)
- Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U.S. 156 (U.S. 1972) (statute invalidated for failing to give ordinary persons notice and inviting arbitrary enforcement)
- Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (U.S. 2015) (void‑for‑vagueness: statute invalid where it fails to give fair notice or invites arbitrary enforcement)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (U.S. 2018) (vagueness doctrine protects against imprecise criminal definitions)
- United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (U.S. 2019) (void‑for‑vagueness doctrine rests on due process and separation of powers)
- Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (U.S. 1982) (facial vagueness challenges disfavored outside First Amendment; tolerance varies with civil vs. criminal penalties)
- Karlin v. Foust, 188 F.3d 446 (7th Cir. 1999) (reasonable medical judgment standard does not inherently render an abortion‑related statute void for vagueness)
- Tr. of Ind. Univ. v. Curry, 918 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2019) (courts should avoid facial invalidation when state courts/agency can clarify statutory meaning)
- United States v. Cook, 970 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2020) (discussing the need for a discernable statutory core to defeat a facial vagueness challenge)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (void‑for‑vagueness: indeterminacy concerns focus on what fact the statute requires to be proved)