Case: Doe v. Minnesota

This case concerns a challenge to a variety of Minnesota state laws concerning abortion and the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. 

On May 29, 2019 several Minnesota medical professionals as well as a religious congregation filed suit in Minnesota’s Second Judicial District against Minnesota’s Governor, Attorney General, Commissioner of Health, Board of Medical Practice and Board of Nursing. Plaintiffs were represented by the Lawyering Project and Gender Justice. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleged that several of Minnesota’s laws concerning abortion and the treatment of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were contrary to Minnesota’s constitutional rights to privacy, free speech, vagueness and equal protection and that the laws constituted impermissible special legislation. More specifically, plaintiffs challenged Minnesota’s:

Physician-Only Law, which limited the provision of abortions to physicians.
Hospitalization Requirements, which mandated that abortions after the first trimester be performed in a hospital or abortion facility.
Reporting Requirements, which mandated that physicians and abortion facilities make specific reports to the Health Commissioner concerning the abortion complications or potential complications.
Two-parent notification law, which required that notice be given to both of the minor’s parents forty-eight hours before an abortion was performed on the minor.
Mandatory Disclosure Law. which required medical professionals to disclose allegedly misleading or incorrect information about the risks of undergoing an abortion to the patient at least twenty-four hours before the procedure.
Physician Disclosure Requirements, which mandated that the informed consent required by the Mandatory Disclosure Law be made by a physician.
Mandatory Delay Requirement, which mandated a twenty-four hour waiting period between a patient’s informed consent to an abortion and the procedure itself.
Ban on Advertising STI Treatments, which prohibited advertising the treatment or cure of venereal disease.
Fetal Tissue Disposition Requirement, which required the fetal remains of an abortion be disposed of by cremation, interment or in a manner directed by the Commissioner of Health
Felony Penalties subjecting abortion facility employees to criminal liability if they lost a patent’s signed consent form to undergo an abortion or if they failed to adhere to the regulations promulgated by the state’s Health Commissioner. 
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was assigned to Judge Thomas Gilligan. 

On July 30, 2018 Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they added Out Justice, a nonprofit providing resources to individuals seeking sexual and reproductive healthcare, as a plaintiff. 

On September 25, 2019 Pro-Life Action Ministries filed a motion to intervene in the case and on January 28, 2020 the court denied the motion. Pro-Life Action Ministries had sought to intervene on the grounds that the Minnesota Government had not filed a complete defense against all claims alleged by plaintiffs. The court found that the legal defense ground for which Pro-Life Action Ministries sought to intervene would ultimately fail, and such the motion to intervene “effectively collapses on itself.” The court also found that Pro-Life Action Ministries had not demonstrated an interest sufficient to intervene because their interests were not sufficiently particular to the case at-hand and had failed to demonstrate that Minnesota’s representation was inadequate. 

On February 20, 2020 Pro-Life Action Ministries filed an appeal on their motion to intervene. The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial of the motion to intervene on October 12, 2020, finding that Pro-Life Action Ministries did not show Minnesota’s defense of the claims to be invalid and did have an interest in the subject matter of the action. The Minnesota Supreme Court subsequently denied Pro-Life Action Ministries' petition for review on November 29, 2020. 

On June 25, 2020 the court granted in part and denied in part Minnesota’s motion to dismiss, finding that each plaintiff had standing to bring the lawsuit for all claims except their constitutional vagueness claim and that all defendants were the proper parties.

On July 29, 2020 the Minnesota Senate filed a Motion to Intervene on the grounds that it was “the only institution in Minnesota’s State Government that is able to defend the challenged statutes without conflict or qualifications” due to the Minnesota Attorney General’s “pro-choice” affiliations. The district court denied the Senate’s motion to intervene on November 2, 2020 after finding that the state Senate had not demonstrated an interest sufficient to intervene because their concerns about the Attorney General’s defense of the case related to a collateral political issue, instead of an interest relating to the actual case at-hand.

On November 22, 2021 the district court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment for claims concerning the religious congregation’s standing to bring suit challenging the state’s ban on advertising the treatment of STIs because they do not engage in activities which were covered by the advertising ban. The district court also granted summary judgment for claims against the state of Minnesota because Ex Parte Young “directs litigants to avoid suing the state and ensure that suit is commenced against a state officer whose responsibility it is to enforce the unconstitutional act and who can remediate any injury caused by that act.” The district court denied Defendants’ motion for summary judgement on all other grounds, finding that (except as previously discussed) Plaintiffs had standing to bring suit and had sued the proper parties.

On June 13, 2022 plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their challenges to the STI Advertising Ban and the Fetal Tissue Disposition statute. The religious congregation plaintiff also dismissed itself as a party. The court granted these dismissals with prejudice on June 21, 2022. 

On July 11, 2022 the District Court granted in part and denied in part plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The court found that the Minnesota State Constitution guarantees the right to obtain an abortion and the right to choose whether to obtain an abortion under a fundamental right to privacy theory. As such, the court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs challenges to the state’s:

Physician-Only Law on privacy grounds, finding that the law limits the number of abortion providers which increases the cost of care, impacting pregnant women’s decisions whether to have abortions. The law failed to pass strict scrutiny because the court found there were other ways to guarantee the state’s general interest in patient health without restricting abortion care solely to physicians.
Hospitalization Requirements on privacy grounds, finding that limiting abortions to hospitals functionally limited access to abortion overall, and that this limitation was not narrowly tailored to the state’s compelling interest in general patient health because most abortions can be performed outside a hospital environment without risk to the patient.
Two-Parent Notification Law on privacy grounds, finding that the law prevented some minors from obtaining abortions because they either could or would not notify both parents or obtain a judicial bypass. The court found that the law did not survive strict scrutiny because the state’s interest in promoting parental involvement in children’s lives did not constitute a compelling state interest. The court also found that the Two-Parent Notification Law was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds because the law treated similar groups of pregnant minors (those who want abortion care and those who want to carry their pregnancy to term) differently and because pregnancy is much riskier than abortion, this fails to be narrowly tailored to the state’s interest in promoting a minor’s physical and mental health.
Mandatory Disclosure Law on privacy grounds, finding that the required disclosures were intended to affect or change the choice of whether to obtain an abortion by providing women with medically inaccurate and irrelevant information. Because the information disclosed was irrelevant and medically inaccurate, this law also failed to meet the state’s interest in ensuring medical patients are well informed as to the risks relating to their medical care. The court also found that the law infringed on physicians’ free speech and, because the disclosure was inaccurate, this infringement could not survive strict scrutiny. 
Physician Disclosure Requirements on privacy grounds, finding that the requirement increased the costs, created delays and overall reduced access to abortion. The court found that in other medical contexts Minnesota laws allowed physicians to delegate the provision of information and therefore this requirement could not withstand strict scrutiny. 
Mandatory Delay Requirement on privacy grounds finding that the time and logistical burdens of requiring a second visit in order to obtain an abortion constituted an unjustified delay, particularly for low-income individuals. The court found that the law did not survive strict scrutiny because the required delay increases maternal health risks and does not promote a patient’s informed consent. The court also reasoned that “forcing abortion patients to go beyond informed consent, to require them to be really, really certain of their decision, insults their intelligence and decision-making capabilities.”
Felony Penalties on privacy grounds, finding that these laws discouraged qualified clinicians from providing abortion care which made it more difficult to meet patient needs in Minnesota. The court found that these laws did not meet the strict scrutiny standard because there were other disciplinary means that were less onerous than criminal prosecution while still sufficiently able to ensure compliance with medical provider’s regulatory requirements. 
Except where stated above, plaintiffs did not move for summary judgment on their equal protection, free speech or special legislation claims. To the extent that defendants moved for summary judgment on those claims, the court denied them under a similar reasoning to the court's privacy right reasoning.

The court denied summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims concerning the state’s reporting laws, instead holding that the laws did not infringe on the fundamental rights of two access abortion care because they were not invasive nor medically irrelevant and because they anonymized the health records of those who receive abortion care. The court also found that to the extent the reporting requirements add to the administrative work of an abortion provider, it was a de minimus amount which does not directly increase the cost of abortion care. 

On August 4, 2022 Traverse County filed a motion to intervene in the case. On September 6, 2022 the district court denied the motion to intervene, finding that the intervention was untimely and that Traverse County did not have a sufficient interest to intervene in the case because the County’s stated desire to appeal the final order could be accomplished by the existing defendants. Moreover, the county’s interest in resolving its “legal conundrum” over the enforceability of abortion laws could be resolved by an advisory opinion. On September 9, 2022 Traverse County appealed the district court’s decision. On April 3, 2023 the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial, upholding the district court’s reasoning and noting that the County does not have a right to intervene in order to defend the constitutionality of criminal statutes when the state attorney general declines to pursue an appeal. 

On September 12, 2022 an anti-abortion group, Mothers Offering Maternal Support, filed a motion to intervene in the case. On March 14, 2023 the District Court denied the group’s motion to intervene, finding that it was untimely, that the organization’s purported personal and familial interests in the outcome of the litigation did not justify intervention, and that the organization failed to demonstrate that the defendants’ representation was inadequate to protect their purported interests. February 12, 2024 the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s denial on the grounds that Mothers Offering Maternal Support’s intervention was untimely. On May 30, 2024 the Minnesota Supreme Court denied Mothers Offering Maternal Support petition for review. 

This case is closed.