Editor’s Note: This story first appeared in the Utah News Dispatch on Aug. 1, 2024. It is republished here in its entirety under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
The Utah Supreme Court issued a ruling Thursday morning that upheld an injunction that has blocked enforcement of a 2020 trigger law that bans nearly all abortions across the state.
The 4-1 opinion from the Utah Supreme Court — which is comprised of three women and two men — affirmed a district court’s decision to enjoin the enforcement of the ban while Planned Parenthood of Utah and the state continue to litigate the constitutionality of the law.
Associate Chief Justice John Pearce authored the opinion, in which Justice Paige Petersen, Justice Diana Hagen and Justice Jill Pohlman joined.
Chief Justice Matthew Durrant, however, filed a dissenting opinion.
“The district court did not err when it concluded that (Planned Parenthood of Utah) had raised serious issues about the constitutionality of SB174,” Pearce wrote in the prevailing opinion. “The court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that (Planned Parenthood of Utah) and its patients would be irreparably harmed without the injunction.”
“Likewise,” Pearce continues, “the court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that the balance of harms tipped in favor of enjoining SB174 while parties litigate its constitutionality. Nor did the court act outside the bounds of its discretion when it concluded that the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.”
Durrant, however, disagreed, arguing that Planned Parenthood lacked legal standing to request an injunction.
“While (Planned Parenthood) asserts that the enforcement of SB174 would cause it to suffer various economic and reputational injuries, none of the arguments in its complaint or request for a preliminary injunction rely on those injuries,” Durrant wrote in his dissenting opinion. (Planned Parenthood’s) arguments instead are premised on the harms SB174’s enforcement would cause to the rights and interests of PPAU’s patients. As the majority agrees, PPAU must show that it has standing to assert these claims on its patients’ behalf.”
While the district court concluded that Planned Parenthood “had standing to assert those claims” based on legal precedent establishing public interest, “the majority now affirms that decision on different grounds, holding that (Planned Parenthood) may assert these claims based on the concept of third-party standing … I respectfully disagree with both conclusions,” Durrant wrote.
Durrant also argued he would reject Planned Parenthood’s legal standing for an injunction for another reason — and he warned the court is risking a “dangerous expansion” of legal standing.
“The difficulties that (Planned Parenthood’s) patients face are genuine, but they are not that different from those faced by many others who wish to challenge a law’s constitutionality,” he wrote. “Appellate litigation is undoubtedly too expensive, inconvenient, and time-consuming. But if these factors alone are enough to justify the exercise of third-party standing, then we risk a dangerous expansion of that doctrine.”
The ruling immediately reverberated across the state. Democrats and Planned Parenthood representatives celebrated, while Republicans and anti-abortion advocates expressed disappointment. At least one Republican lawmaker said he will ask the Legislature to restrict Utah’s current abortion laws while court battles over the trigger law continue to play out.
The reaction from the Utah Supreme Court’s ruling was swift and scathing. It may also prompt Utah’s Republican-supermajority Legislature to hold a special session to further restrict Utah’s existing ban on abortions after 18 weeks of gestation.
Hours after the court issued its ruling, the sponsor of the trigger law, Sen. Dan McCay, R-Riverton, called the decision “extremely disappointing.” He also told reporters he plans to request a special legislative session by the end of the year to further restrict Utah’s current 18-week ban while the courts continue to hash out the more sweeping trigger law that would ban almost all abortions, with some exceptions for rape, incest and certain health issues.
“We’re going to look at making it much shorter,” he said, pointing to other states like Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and Iowa that ban abortions past about six weeks of gestation.
Other Republican leaders including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, Senate President Stuart Adams and House Speaker Mike Schultz expressed deep disappointment in the ruling — though they did not immediately say whether they would indeed support McCay’s proposal or agree to call a special session.
“Over the next few weeks, we will discuss options with Sen. McCay, lawmakers and the governor to determine the next steps,” Adams said in a statement to Utah News Dispatch.
In response to questions about McCay’s request for a special session, Cox said in a statement to the Dispatch, “We are still reviewing the opinion and will be having discussions with the attorney general’s office and legislative leadership regarding every possible option to determine the best way to proceed to protect our most vulnerable.”
While “disappointed,” the governor said in a separate prepared statement, “We are hopeful that this decision will be a temporary setback and the laws will take effect following resolution of the case.” He also expressed gratitude for the state’s current 18-week ban, and added, “regardless of this outcome, our administration will continue to fight for all Utahns, including the unborn.”
About Author
