State v. Jones, 10 N.W.3d 747

Judy K. Jones, self-described as a “lay midwife,” was criminally charged in two Nebraska counties under the Uniform Credentialing Act (UCA) for practicing a profession without the required state credential and failing to comply with cease-and-desist orders.
Jones, who holds only a private midwifery certification and not a Nebraska credential, allegedly provided prenatal, childbirth, and postnatal care to families planning home births.
At preliminary hearings, county courts found probable cause, but district courts sustained Jones’ pleas in abatement (effectively dismissing the charges), holding that “nurse midwives” are not expressly required to be credentialed under Nebraska law, and raising concerns that such a requirement would be unconstitutionally vague.
The Nebraska Attorney General appealed, arguing the district courts misinterpreted the UCA and erred in their void-for-vagueness analysis.
The Nebraska Supreme Court consolidated the appeals and reviewed the statutory framework and constitutionality of applying credentialing requirements to midwifery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Jones)	Held (Court's Ruling)
Must lay/nurse midwives hold UCA credentials?	Yes; conduct falls under medicine/nurse midwifery, regulated.	No; neither term is defined or expressly regulated in statute.	Yes; credential required when conduct within scope.
Was there sufficient evidence for probable cause?	Yes; Jones performed regulated prenatal and birth functions.	No; evidence did not show practice requiring credential.	Yes; evidence supported probable cause for charges.
Is the UCA void for vagueness as applied?	No; statute provides sufficient guidance to ordinary people.	Yes; lack of definitions leaves midwives unaware of duties.	No; statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied.
Did district court err by not considering all issues?	Yes; motions to quash/demurrers unresolved.	Jones raised other constitutional/statutory defects.	Remand to consider pending motions and arguments.

State ex rel. Dept. of Health v. Jeffrey, 247 Neb. 100 (scope of regulatory statute determined by examining conduct and its relation to regulated professions)