Planned Parenthood v. State
2024 MT 227
| Mont. | 2024Background
- This case involves Planned Parenthood of Montana and Dr. Dickman challenging two Montana laws passed in 2023: HB 575 (requiring an ultrasound before any abortion and restricting telehealth medication abortion) and HB 721 (prohibiting dilation and evacuation (D&E) abortions, the only outpatient option after 15 weeks).
- Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block the laws before they took effect, arguing they violate the Montana Constitution's explicit right to privacy.
- The District Court heard expert testimony from both sides and granted a preliminary injunction, maintaining the status quo pending trial.
- The State of Montana appealed the injunction, arguing the District Court erred in its analysis and application of the legal standard for injunctions.
- The Montana Supreme Court analyzed the District Court's decision under the new, stricter four-part standard for preliminary injunctions (likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Court Ruling) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of health care providers to sue on privacy grounds | Providers have standing under Montana precedent | No standing post-Dobbs; precedent should be overturned | Providers have standing; Court declines to overturn precedent for PI appeals |
| Legal standard and constitutional scrutiny | Strict scrutiny applies due to explicit privacy right | Rational basis/undue burden applies post-Dobbs | Strict scrutiny per Montana law applies |
| Constitutionality of HB 575 (ultrasound/telehealth limits) | Burdens patients with unnecessary procedures; violates right to privacy | Requirement ensures abortions are pre-viability; legitimate state interest | Likely unconstitutional; preliminary injunction justified |
| Constitutionality of HB 721 (D&E abortion ban) | Removes sole outpatient post-15 week option; increases risk; infringes privacy | Regulates only one procedure; does not prohibit abortion; justified by state interest | Likely unconstitutional; preliminary injunction justified |
| Scope of injunction/severability | Law should be enjoined in full due to lack of severability | Injunction should be limited to challenged provisions | Enjoining full statute appropriate absent severability |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. State, 296 Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364 (Mont. 1999) (Montana Constitution's explicit right to privacy requires strict scrutiny for restrictions on pre-viability abortion)
- Weems v. State, 395 Mont. 350, 440 P.3d 4 (Mont. 2019) (standing for providers to challenge abortion restrictions)
- Driscoll v. Stapleton, 401 Mont. 405, 473 P.3d 386 (Mont. 2020) (loss of constitutional right is irreparable injury for PI purposes)
- Molnar v. Fox, 370 Mont. 238, 301 P.3d 824 (Mont. 2013) (statutes presumed constitutional; challengers have burden)
- Planned Parenthood of Mont. v. State ex rel. Knudsen, 409 Mont. 378, 515 P.3d 301 (Mont. 2022) (preliminary injunction standard and strict scrutiny for abortion laws)