Case: Davis v. Edmondson

CJ-2009-9154 | Oklahoma state trial court

Filed Date: Sept. 29, 2009

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On September 29, 2009, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), on behalf of two Oklahoma resident taxpayers, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Oklahoma state trial court). The lawsuit challenged Oklahoma House Bill 1595 on the grounds that the law violated the Oklahoma State Constitution’s “single-subject” requirement and that its enforcement would unlawfully use taxpayer funds. H.B. 1595 included a ban on “sex-selective abortions” and established new reporting require…

On September 29, 2009, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), on behalf of two Oklahoma resident taxpayers, filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Oklahoma County (Oklahoma state trial court). The lawsuit challenged Oklahoma House Bill 1595 on the grounds that the law violated the Oklahoma State Constitution’s “single-subject” requirement and that its enforcement would unlawfully use taxpayer funds. H.B. 1595 included a ban on “sex-selective abortions” and established new reporting requirements on physicians providing abortion care. The defendants were the Attorney General of Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, and the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners. CRR sought (1) declaratory judgment that H.B. 1595 violated the Oklahoma Constitution and was therefore void, (2) permanent injunctive relief restricting the state from enforcing H.B. 1595, and (3) attorney’s fees and costs. This case was first assigned to Judge Patricia C. Parrish, then reassigned to Judge Twyla Mason Gray, and then reassigned again to Judge Daniel L. Owens.

On October 19, 2009, Judge Gray granted the plaintiffs request for a temporary restraining order. Each party then filed a motion for summary judgment on January 15, 2010. On March 2, 2010, Judge Owens granted the summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court found that H.B. 1595 violated the “single-subject” requirement listed in Article V, Section 57 of the Oklahoma Constitution because it contained multiple subjects that were not germane, relative, and cognate to a readily apparent common theme and purpose. As such, the statute was deemed void, of no effect, and unenforceable. 

Summary Authors

Kathleen Lok (1/15/2023)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

CJ-2009-9154

Docket

Sept. 5, 2021

Sept. 5, 2021

Docket

CJ-2009-9154

Petition

Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

Complaint

CJ-2009-9154

Temporary Restraining Order

Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Order/Opinion

CJ-2009-9154

Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

March 2, 2010

March 2, 2010

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

Last updated Aug. 30, 2023, 1:58 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Oklahoma

Case Type(s):

Reproductive Issues

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 29, 2009

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The plaintiffs are two Oklahoma residents and taxpayers.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Center for Reproductive Rights

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Attorney General, State

Commissioner of Health, State

Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, State

President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

State law

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

Reproductive rights:

Fetus Identity

Reproductive health care (including birth control, abortion, and others)

Abortion