Utah Supreme Court Upholds Temporary Injunction of Abortion Ban During Constitutional Challenge
- August 09, 2024
The Utah Supreme Court held August 1 that a preliminary injunction of a state statute criminalizing most abortions should remain in place while a constitutional challenge to the law plays out.
Senate Bill 174, which criminalizes abortions except in certain circumstances, including to save a woman’s life, to prevent “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function,” and in cases of rape or incest, was set to go into effect after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
However, shortly after the Court issued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), Planned Parenthood Association of Utah challenged the law, alleging it violated rights that the Utah Constitution guaranteed. The trial court agreed to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of the statute while the constitutionality of SB 174 was litigated. The state petitioned the high court for review.
The high court confirmed that Planned Parenthood satisfied requirements for traditional standing and also had third-party standing to advance its patients’ claims. In addition, the high court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction under a more lenient standard that the state legislature subsequently modified.
At the time of the district court’s ruling, Utah R. Civ. P. 65A allowed a party seeking a preliminary injunction to show either a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim, or that “the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.”
The district court granted the preliminary injunction after concluding there were serious issues on the merits that should be subject to further litigation as to whether SB 174 infringed various rights guaranteed under the state’s constitution, including a right to equal protection, a right to bodily integrity, and a right to privacy.
After the high court agreed to review the decision, the legislature amended the preliminary injunction standard to eliminate the “serious issues on the merits” standard. But the high court nonetheless upheld the district court’s decision at this time based on the more lenient standard.
In so holding, the high court rejected the state’s argument that plaintiff’s claims failed because the Utah Constitution does not mention abortion. The state constitution protects both enumerated and unenumerated rights, the high court pointed out.
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by concluding plaintiff and its patients “would be irreparably harmed without the injunction,” that “the balance of harms tipped in favor of enjoining SB 174 while the parties litigate its constitutionality,” and that “the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.” The high court emphasized that it was not deciding the merits of the plaintiff’s constitutional claims.
A dissenting opinion argued Planned Parenthood lacked standing to bring the action.
Planned Parenthood Ass’n of Utah v. Cox, No. 20220696 (Utah Aug. 1, 2024).