TALLAHASSEE, Fla. | The Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn Roe v. Wade moved Monday to courtrooms around the country as anti-abortion advocates looked to quickly enact statewide bans and their opponents sought to buy more time.
The high court’s decision Friday to end constitutional protections for abortion opened the gates for a wave of legal battles from all sides.
Many of the court cases will focus on “trigger laws,” adopted in 13 states in anticipation of the ruling and designed to take effect quickly. Lawsuits could also target old anti-abortion laws that went unenforced under Roe, and cases over abortion restrictions that were put on hold awaiting the Supreme Court ruling are also starting to come back into play.
“We’ll be back in court tomorrow and the next day and the next day,” Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which argued the case that resulted in Supreme Court ruling, told reporters in a video call Friday.
On Monday, a Florida judge is considering a request from abortion rights advocates to block a new state law, which bans abortions after 15 weeks with some exceptions and is set to take effect July 1. The Planned Parenthood Association of Utah has already challenged a trigger law with narrow exceptions. The American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona and an abortion-rights group filed an emergency motion Saturday seeking to block a 2021 law that they worry can be used to halt all abortions.
Brigitte Amiri, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, said the organization is looking at “all options” to protect access to abortion. As of Saturday, abortion services had stopped in at least 11 states — either because of state laws or confusion over them.
In some cases, the lawsuits may only be a play for time. Even if courts block some abortion bans or restrictions from taking hold, lawmakers in many conservative state could move quickly to address any flaws cited.
Challenges to trigger laws could be made on the grounds that the conditions to impose the bans have not been met, or that it was improper for a past legislature to bind the current one to a new law. Laura Herner, a professor at Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, said trigger bans or restrictions could also be challenged using equal protection arguments.
She said other challenges might call into question whether laws sufficiently and clearly allow for exceptions to protect the life or health of a pregnant woman.
Newly written bans, too, will likely face challenges. Instead of relying on a constitutional protection at the federal level, abortion rights supporters will be making the case that state constitutions guarantee the right to abortion.
A judge is hearing arguments on that issue Monday in Florida, where attorneys are seeking an emergency injunction to stop a new law from taking effect Friday. The ban beyond 15 weeks have exceptions to save the pregnant woman’s life or prevent physical harm or in cases where the fetus has a fatal abnormality. The ACLU of Florida argues it violates the state’s constitution.
Still other cases could be filed as states try to sort out whether abortion bans in place before Roe was decided — sometimes referred to as “zombie laws” — apply now that there is no federal protection for abortion.
For instance, Wisconsin passed a law in 1849 banning abortions except to save the life of the mother. Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, said he does not believe it’s enforceable. Pro-Life Wisconsin and other abortion opponents have called on lawmakers to impose a new ban.
In the meantime, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin said it was immediately suspending all abortions, though the district attorneys in the counties that include Madison and Milwaukee have both suggested that they would not enforce the ban.
In Michigan, Planned Parenthood was proactive, challenging a 1931 abortion ban ahead of the Supreme Court ruling. In May, a judge said the ban could not be enforced because it violates the state’s constitution. Abortion rights supporters are now trying to get a proposed state constitutional amendment on the ballot in November to spell out that people can make their own decisions about abortion and birth control.
Advocates and experts also expect to see court fights over state efforts to pursue legal action against people who cross state lines to seek abortions — or to protect people from such action.
Idaho, Oklahoma and Texas have adopted laws that allow people to seek bounties against those who help others get abortions. There’s a question over whether that means people can be pursued across state lines — and some states are acting ahead of time to prevent that.
For instance, the California Legislature, controlled by Democrats, passed a bill Thursday to shield abortion providers and volunteers in the state from civil judgments imposed by other states. In liberal Massachusetts, Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican, signed an executive order on Friday that prohibits state agencies from assisting other states’ investigations into anyone who receives or delivers reproductive health services that are legal in Massachusetts.
“It’s going to be very confusing and have a lot of moving parts and the patients are really going to be the ones who bear the brunt of this. There’s going to be a lot of confusion about where people can access abortion,” said Amiri, of the ACLU.
Forliti reported from Minneapolis and Mulvihill from Cherry Hill, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin; Kate Brumback in Atlanta; Steve LeBlanc in Boston and Don Thompson in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.
For AP’s full coverage of the Supreme Court ruling on abortion, go to https://apnews.com/hub/abortion.