9 N.W.3d 604
Neb.2024Background
- Planned Parenthood of the Heartland and its medical director, Dr. Sarah Traxler, challenged Nebraska's 2023 L.B. 574, which restricts both abortion after 12 weeks and gender-affirming care for minors.
- The original L.B. 574 focused on prohibiting gender-altering procedures for minors ("Let Them Grow Act"). An amendment added abortion restrictions (the "Preborn Child Protection Act"), after a separate abortion bill failed in the legislature.
- Planned Parenthood argued that L.B. 574 violated the Nebraska Constitution’s single subject rule (art. III, § 14), which requires bills to address only one subject.
- The district court found the bill did not violate the single subject rule. Planned Parenthood appealed, while the Attorney General cross-appealed on justiciability grounds.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s summary judgment de novo and treated the constitutionality issue as a question of law. The key point of dispute was whether combining abortion and gender-affirming care regulations in a single bill was constitutionally permissible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Justiciability of single subject challenge | Court can review constitutionality of legislative enactments under art. III, § 14 | Single subject challenges are nonjusticiable political questions | Justiciable; court has duty to review |
| Standing of Dr. Traxler | Traxler, as medical director impacted by the law, has standing | Traxler lacks standing; insufficient injury alleged | Not decided; Planned Parenthood had standing |
| Exclusion of Evidence | Affidavit portions and legislative/extrinsic documents were wrongly excluded | Proffered evidence irrelevant; exclusion was proper | Not addressed; not necessary for resolution |
| Single subject rule (art. III, § 14) | L.B. 574 combines distinct and unrelated subjects (abortion/gender-affirming care) | Both issues are medical procedures under public health/welfare | No violation; law regulates one subject |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaksha v. State, 241 Neb. 106 (Neb. 1992) (analyzes whether all bill provisions are germane to subject in title in a single subject challenge)
- Van Horn v. State, 46 Neb. 62 (Neb. 1895) (early articulation of the “single main purpose” test under the Nebraska Constitution’s single subject rule)
- Blackledge v. Richards, 194 Neb. 188 (Neb. 1975) (bill is sufficient under the single subject rule if all provisions are germane to the purpose in the title)
- K. C. & O. R. Co. v. Frey, 30 Neb. 790 (Neb. 1890) (comprehensive acts do not violate single subject rule as long as they have one purpose or object)
- State ex rel. Baldwin v. Strain, 152 Neb. 763 (Neb. 1950) (relatedness to subject in title test applied in single subject context)