Case: Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline

On September 30, 2014, the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice and Nova Health Systems, represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights and private counsel, filed this lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County, challenging Oklahoma H.B. 2684.

H.B. 2684 would have required physicians providing medication abortions to use the Mifeprex regimen, an obsolete protocol that did not meet the current standard of care and was less safe for patients. The lawsuit, filed against the Oklahoma Commissioner of Health and the Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, argued that this law would violate their right to substantive due process and equal protection under Article 2, Section 2 and 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution, that it would constitute a special law prohibited under Article 5, Section 46 and 59, and that it would impermissibly delegate legislative authority to a federal agency in violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. Plaintiffs sought (1) declaratory relief stating that H.B. 2684 violated the Oklahoma Constitution and was void and of no effect, (2) preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the State from enforcing H.B. 2684, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Roger H. Stuart and then reassigned to Judge Patricia G. Parrish.

On the same day that Plaintiffs filed suit, they also filed a motion for a temporary injunction. On October 29, 2014, the trial court granted a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of H.B. 2684, Sections 1(H)(2), (I), and (J), the provisions in the bill concerning loss of licensure and civil liability, reasoning that those provisions created a private cause of action and were likely a special law. The court denied a temporary injunction to the rest of the bill, reasoning that as the law limited a method of abortion but did not present a ban, the Plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. On the same day, Plaintiffs appealed this denial to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, who, on November 4, 2014, granted the temporary injunction. This prohibited the enforcement of H.B. 2684 until the constitutionality of the Act was fully litigated. The court did not provide a reasoning as to its decision. 2014 OK 91, 113,355.

On January 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment on their improper delegation and special law claims and on March 2, 2015, the Defendants filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment. On August 27, 2015, the court granted the summary judgment for the Plaintiffs, denied Defendants motion for summary judgment as moot, declared H.B. 2684 as unconstitutional and void, and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing H.B. 2684. The court cited the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s ruling in Cline I, 2013 OK 93, 313 P.3d 253, which held that the “FDA has stated that evidence-based regimens are common, permissible, and can be required by good medical practice” and that the restriction of the use of drug RU-486 for medication abortions was “so completely at odds with the standard that governs the practice of medicine that they only serve to prevent women from obtaining abortions and to punish and discriminate against those who do.” Based on this ruling, the court here found that H.B. 2684 created a special law, in violation of the Oklahoma Constitution, where a general law could be made applicable and that it is not reasonably and substantially related to any legitimate legislative objective. 

On September 23, 2015, Defendants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma, which, on February 23, 2016, reversed and remanded the trial court’s judgment. The Oklahoma Supreme Court found that H.B. 2684 did not violate the non-delegation doctrine of Article V, Section 1 as it did not allow a federal agency’s actions to affect Oklahoma’s law, and that it did not violate Article V, Section 59 as it is a permissible special law that is reasonably and substantially connected to protecting women. The case was remanded to the trial court for a determination of H.B. 2684’s validity under other constitutional provisions. 2016 OK 17, 114,307.

On November 9, 2017, the trial court granted Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, declared H.B. 2684 unconstitutional and void, and permanently enjoined the State from enforcing any of its provisions. The court found that the Act failed under the undue burden standard because it would place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking pre-viability abortion and that this burden exceeded its benefits. Defendants appealed this decision on December 8, 2017, and on April 30, 2019, the Oklahoma Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. 2019 OK 33, 116,603.