Wrigley v. Romanick, 988 N.W.2d 231

Background

Parties and statute: Attorney General Drew Wrigley sought review after the district court enjoined enforcement of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-31-12; plaintiffs are Access Independent Health Services (Red River Women’s Clinic) and Dr. Kathryn Eggleston challenging the felony ban on performing abortions (with narrow affirmative defenses).
Procedural posture: District court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction; the State petitioned this Court for a supervisory writ; the North Dakota Supreme Court granted review but denied the requested relief, leaving the injunction in place.
Central legal question: Whether the North Dakota Constitution protects a fundamental right to obtain an abortion (at least to preserve life or health), thereby triggering strict scrutiny review of the statute.
Historical context: North Dakota territorial and state statutes historically carved out exceptions for abortions necessary to preserve the woman’s life; the challenged statute was enacted in 2007 as a trigger law and became enforceable after Dobbs (2022).
Outcome: The Court held the state constitution protects a woman’s right to obtain an abortion to preserve her life or health; because § 12.1-31-12 criminalizes such care and only provides a narrow affirmative defense, it is not narrowly tailored under strict scrutiny, supporting the preliminary injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ND Constitution protects a fundamental right to abortion (at least to preserve life/health)	RRWC: article I, §§1 and 12 protect life/liberty and historically supported life/health-preserving abortions	State: no separate state constitutional right; rights cited differ from abortion and lack longstanding roots	Held: ND Constitution protects a fundamental right to obtain abortion to preserve life or health (limited scope)
Standard of review and whether statute survives strict scrutiny	RRWC: if right is fundamental, statute must be narrowly tailored to a compelling interest and it is not	State: protecting unborn life and women’s health are compelling interests; statute is permissible regulation	Held: compelling interests exist, but §12.1-31-12 is not narrowly tailored (criminalizes life/health-preserving care; defense limited to preventing death)
Irreparable harm if injunction denied	RRWC: enforcement would prevent life-saving or health-preserving abortions and cause irreparable harm to patients and clinic	State: irreparable harm to unborn life if enforcement enjoined	Held: Court found district court did not abuse discretion in concluding plaintiffs would suffer greater irreparable injury; factor favors injunction
Public interest and status quo pending trial	RRWC: protecting constitutional rights and continuing 49-year practice of legal abortion favors injunction	State: enforcement of duly enacted law serves public interest	Held: status quo (allowing abortion care since Roe until Dobbs) favors maintaining injunction; district court did not abuse discretion

Key Cases Cited

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (U.S. 2022) (overruled Roe and returned abortion regulation authority to states)
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (federal constitutional right to abortion prior to Dobbs)
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (U.S. 1992) (federal framework governing abortion restrictions prior to Dobbs)
MKB Management Corp. v. Burdick, 2014 ND 197, 855 N.W.2d 31 (N.D. 2014) (prior plurality and fragmented state-court consideration of state constitutional abortion claims)
Hoff v. Berg, 1999 ND 115, 595 N.W.2d 285 (N.D. 1999) (establishes strict scrutiny for statutes implicating fundamental rights under state constitution)
Nodak Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ward County Farm Bureau, 2004 ND 60, 676 N.W.2d 752 (N.D. 2004) (preliminary injunction factors and abuse-of-discretion standard)
Vorachek v. Citizens State Bank, 461 N.W.2d 580 (N.D. 1990) (preliminary injunction described as extraordinary remedy)