Case: Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State of Montana IIII

This lawsuit is about challenges to laws requiring parental consent for minors attempting to access abortion care.

In 2011, the Montana Legislature enacted Legislative Referendum 120. After Montana voters adopted it in the November 2012 election, it took effect January 1, 2013 (the "2012 Referendum"). Under the 2012 Referendum, a minor under the age of 16 seeking an abortion had to notify a parent or seek judicial bypass by petitioning the youth court for an order waiving the notice requirement. Notice could also be waived in the event of a medical emergency.

In 2013, the Montana Legislature passed the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013 (the "2013 Act") which required minors to obtain notarized written consent of a parent or guardian before obtaining an abortion or obtaining judicial bypass. Similarly, notice could be waived in the event of a medical emergency. The 2013 Act was set to go into effect on July 1, 2013, and it would have repealed the 2012 Referendum. 

On May 29, 2013, Planned Parenthood of Montana and its medical director ("Planned Parenthood") filed this lawsuit challenging the 2012 Referendum and the 2013 Act in the Montana First Judicial District Court. Planned Parenthood sued the state of Montana and the Montana attorney general under state law.

Represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America and private counsel, plaintiffs claimed that the 2012 Referendum and the 2013 Act violated several rights guaranteed by the Montana Constitution: the right to privacy, the right to equal protection of the law, the rights of minors, and the right to due process of the laws. Planned Parenthood also claimed that, because a 1995 parental notice of abortion act was found to violate the Montana Constitution, see Wicklund v. State, the defendants were collaterally estopped from defending the same state interests in this case. Planned Parenthood sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. 

The defendants agreed to a preliminary injunction of the 2013 Act, which the district court entered on June 25, 2013. Accordingly, as the 2013 Act would have repealed the 2012 Referendum, the latter remained in effect. 

On June 17, 2013, Defendants filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of collateral estoppel. Planned Parenthood filed a motion for summary judgment on all counts, but the parties agreed to stay the other claims while they litigated the issue of collateral estoppel. 

On December 10, 2013, the parties appeared before Judge Jeffrey Sherlock in the district court. On January 31, 2014, Judge Sherlock granted summary judgment in favor of Planned Parenthood, holding that Defendants were barred from defending the 2012 Referendum and 2013 Act. Judge Sherlock reasoned that the parties in the two cases were the same, the issues were identical, and that the State had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in the previous case. This was reversed by the Montana Supreme Court on November 19, 2014 on the grounds that the previous lawsuit addressed a distinct law. 

After a “lengthy series of judicial substitutions, recusals, and retirements” the court once again granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on February 21, 2023. The court held that the 2013 Act infringed on the privacy right found in Montana’s constitution, noting “a long Montana tradition of suspicion of governmental interference.”  The court also found that the 2013 Act was not narrowly tailored enough to pass strict scrutiny, and so declared the law unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the state from enforcing it. The court did not make a ruling on the 2012 Referendum, given the narrower scope of the law and several unanswered questions.

On March 15, 2023 the state court granted an order certifying the ruling for immediate appeal to the State Supreme Court. The Montana Supreme Court heard the appeal and, on August 14, 2024, upheld the lower court’s findings. In the Court’s opinion, written by Justice Laurie McKinnon, the court noted that the Montana Constitution grants minors the same rights as adults and that its privacy guarantee includes abortion access. Accordingly, as Defendants could not demonstrate a real and significant relationship between the 2013 Act and the purported goals, the 2013 Act was held to violate minors’ rights to equal protection and privacy. 

The State argued it had a substantial interest in protecting minors from victimization, protecting their psychological and physical wellbeing, protecting them from their own immaturity, and promoting the right of parents to raise their children. This, according to the State, justified their infringement on the right to privacy and their differential treatment. However, the Court concluded that this was not adequate justification when weighed against the right of a minor to make the most intimate and personal decision of whether to carry a child to term.

On January 10, 2025 Montana filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court. 

As of April 14 2025, the case is ongoing.