Case: Northland Family Planning Center v. Nessel

This is a challenge to abortion restrictions under the Michigan Constitution's Reproductive Freedom For All amendment. 

On February 6, 2024, abortion providers Northland Family Planning Center, Northland Family Planning Center Inc. East, and Northland Family Planning Center Inc., West (collectively, "Northland") and Medical Students for Choice ("MSFC") brought this lawsuit challenging abortion restrictions in the Michigan Court of Claims. The lawsuit challenged four provisions of a state statute related to abortion under the state constitution’s Reproductive Freedom For All amendment (RFFA). The four provisions were (1) the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, (2) the mandatory uniform informed consent, (3) the coercion screening, and (4) the advanced practice clinician (APC) ban, collectively codified under MCL 333.17015 and MCL 333.17015a. Northland and MSFC sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. 

Represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights and private counsel, plaintiffs sued the Michigan Attorney General, the Acting Director of Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs, and the Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services. The case was assigned to Judge Sima Patel.

On the same day, February 6, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction and requested oral argument. On February 27, the Michigan Attorney General filed a response. She did not oppose entering an injunction against the 24-hour delay, mandatory counseling, and provider ban provisions of the challenged statutes, but requested the court narrow the scope of the requested injunction so that other provisions would not be enjoined. The Department of Attorney General "erected a conflict wall" in the case, and a separate team of attorneys representing the People of the State of Michigan (the People) intervened in the lawsuit to defend the challenged statute that same day.

The court granted in part plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction on June 25. Specifically, the court preliminarily enjoined the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, the mandatory informed consent, and the ban on APCs providing abortion care. The court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a high likelihood of success in establishing that the restrictions burdened and infringed upon a patient's freedom to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care without a compelling government interest. The court did not grant plaintiffs' motion as to the Michigan Department of Health and Human Service's screening tools, protocols, and notices regarding coercion and domestic violence.

On July 1, the People moved to stay the preliminary injunction in the trial court and then,  on July 12, the People also filed a leave to appeal the decision to the Michigan Court of Appeals and request a stay of the preliminary injunction. The trial court denied the motion to stay on July 24. The Court of Appeals also denied both a stay and leave to appeal for “failure to persuade the court of the need for immediate review” on August 21.

On December 20, 2024, both the plaintiffs and the People moved for summary judgment. The trial court denied both cross-motions on January 21, 2025, holding that the Northland plaintiffs had standing to bring the case, as their businesses suffered special injuries from compliance with the statute distinct from those of the general public. The case proceeded to a bench trial, which took place throughout February 2025. The parties filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law on April 4, 2025.

On May 13, 2025, following the bench trial, Judge Patel granted in part the plaintiffs’ requests for declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction enjoining the challenged laws. 2025 Mich. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1. The court permanently enjoined as unconstitutional under the RFFA the mandatory 24-hour waiting period, the mandatory uniform informed consent, and the APC ban, as well as statutory subsections “inextricably intertwined” with those provisions. It upheld the remaining provisions of MCL 333.17015 and MCL 333.17015a, including the coercion screening, as constitutional and severable.

The court explained that the RFFA eliminated the previous legal tests developed to evaluate abortion restrictions, instead making the relevant strict scrutiny inquiry “whether the laws deny, burden, or infringe upon an individual’s freedom to make and effectuate decisions about abortion care,” balanced against the only permissible compelling state interest, the “health of the individual seeking care.” Using this standard, the court found that the challenged provisions largely violated the RFFA, as most of the expert witnesses testified that the provisions not only failed to protect patient health, they were contrary to accepted medical standards.  The court upheld the coercion screening requirements because it found that the witnesses agreed that “coercion screening is a necessary step in abortion care.” It also upheld other severable portions of the statutes.

On May 29, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a motion to make additional findings of fact pursuant to MCR 2.517(B), which would allow the trial court to amend its judgment accordingly. On June 3, 2025, the Attorney General filed a motion to amend or reconsider in the trial court, also pursuant to MCR 2.517(B). The trial court denied both motions on July 31, 2025.

Meanwhile, on May 27, 2025, the People requested leave to appeal. On June 27, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the People’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction in the appellate court, which the appellate court denied on July 30. On September 15, the plaintiffs requested leave to cross-appeal. Finally, on December 15, the Michigan Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals. 

As of April 1, 2026, this case is pending before the Michigan Court of Appeals.