Case: Burns v. Cline

CV-2015-2050 | Oklahoma state trial court

Filed Date: Nov. 3, 2015

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 3, 2015, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit on behalf of an Oklahoma physician who had been practicing safe abortion care, against the Oklahoma Commissioner of Health and the District Attorney for Cleveland, Garvin and McClain counties. The lawsuit challenged S.B. 642, which imposed four different sets of requirements or restrictions on abortion providers in Oklahoma, including: A prohibition on aiding, abetting, or assisting a minor in obtaining an abortion without…

A prohibition on aiding, abetting, or assisting a minor in obtaining an abortion without parental consent.
A requirement that the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation collect fetal tissue recovered from an abortion performed on a minor under the age of fourteen for purposes of a rape investigation.
A new statutory scheme for the licensing and inspection of abortion facilities.
A provision that anyone who violated the Act or certain other abortion provisions would be guilty of a felony.

The plaintiff, who filed this challenge in the District Court of Oklahoma Country (a state trial court), argued that the law violated the Oklahoma Constitution’s single-subject rule. The plaintiff sought (1) a declaratory judgment stating that S.B. 642 violates the Oklahoma Constitution and is void and of no effect, (2) permanent injunctive relief prohibiting the state from enforcing S.B. 642, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was assigned to Judge Thomas E. Prince.

Prior to this suit being filed, on September 25, 2015, the plaintiff filed an application to assume original jurisdiction and a petition for declaratory and injunctive relief in the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma. SC#114312. On October 26, 2015, the Oklahoma Supreme Court assumed original jurisdiction and stayed enforcement of S.B. 642 as litigation proceeded in trial court.

On January 13, 2016, the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and found that there was no genuine issue of material fact. The court reasoned that the purpose of each of the four sections of S.B. 642 were germane to the bill’s title and were relative and cognate to one another. The plaintiff then appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma on February 5, 2016. SC#114679.

On October 4, 2016, the Supreme Court of the State of Oklahoma reversed the decision of the trial court and held that S.B. 642 was unconstitutional and violated the single-subject rule of Article 5, Section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution. 382 P.3d 1048. Specifically, the court found that the four sections of the legislation were so unrelated and misleading that a legislator voting on the matter could have been left with an all-or-nothing choice, which is what the single-subject requirement is intended to prevent. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma deemed S.B. 642 unconstitutional and void, and the trial court entered a remanded judgment stating as such. As a result, the stay of S.B. 642 previously issued by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in SC#114312 was converted to a permanent injunction of the Act.

show full summary

Summary Authors

Kathleen Lok (1/17/2023)

People

Judge(s)

Stinson, Sheila (Oklahoma)

Attorney for Plaintiff

PATTON, J Blake (Oklahoma)

Attorney for Defendant

Robertson, James (Oklahoma)