Resource

State Court Abortion Litigation Tracker

Numerous challenges to abortion bans have been filed in state courts since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Last Updated: January 11, 2024

Published: December 5, 2022

Brennan Center and Center for Reproductive Rights logos

This tracker is a joint project of the Center for Reproductive Rights and the Brennan Center for Justice.

This resource stopped being updated on January 11, 2024. To explore the landscape of state high court decisions and constitutional provisions on the right to abortion, please visit the Center for Reproductive Rights’ interactive map on State Constitutions and Abortion Rights. For a searchable database of state supreme court opinions and briefings related to pending and recently decided reproductive rights cases, please visit State Court Report.

In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the nearly 50-year-old landmark ruling that the federal Constitution protects a right to abortion. In the wake of the Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a number of states quickly moved to enforce abortion bans and restrictions, spurring a slate of emergency litigation to protect reproductive rights under state law. In this tracker, the Brennan Center for Justice and the Center for Reproductive Rights aggregate pending and completed state court litigation against bans that were, or would have been, unconstitutional under Roe.

This is not a summary of abortion access in the states — for information on the current status of state abortion bans and restrictions, as well as laws protecting abortion access in the states, please see the Center for Reproductive Rights’s After Roe Fell: Abortion Laws by State. To learn about state court decisions that established state constitutional protections for abortion rights prior to Dobbs, please see the report on State Constitutions and Abortion Rights.

As of January 11, 2024, a total of 40 cases have been filed challenging abortion bans in 23 states, of which 22 remain pending at either the trial or appellate levels.

So far, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that its state constitution protects the right to an abortion and struck down a 6-week ban, but then reversed course to uphold a virtually identical ban a few months later. The Idaho Supreme Court has held that the state constitution does not protect the right to abortion.

Several courts have also declared that their state constitutions provide limited rights to abortion. For instance, the North Dakota Supreme Court and the Indiana Supreme Court have ruled that their state constitutions protect the right to an abortion when necessary to preserve life or health. The Oklahoma Supreme Court has ruled that its state constitution protects the right to an abortion when needed to preserve the life of the patient.

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

States:

Alabama

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Alabama
Alaska

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Alaska
Arizona
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Arizona
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson and Planned Parenthood of Arizona
  
  Defendant(s): Mark Brnovich
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (A.R.S. § 13–3603)
  
  Description: After the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, a state court blocked Arizona’s pre-Roe near-total ban. In the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Arizona’s attorney general asked the state court to lift its injunction. In response, the plaintiffs argue that Arizona’s abortion laws need to be harmonized, which would mean that the pre-Roe ban does not apply to abortions provided by licensed physicians and must remain blocked to that extent. An intermediate appeals court temporarily blocked the ban, reversing the trial court’s order that had allowed the ban to take effect. The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision
  
  Key Documents
  
  Rule 60(b) motion (July 13, 2022)
  
  Response to Rule 60(b) motion (July 20, 2022)
  
  Rule 60(b) ruling (September 22, 2022)
  
  Order granting stay (October 7, 2022)
  
  Order blocking ban (December 30, 2022)
- Plaintiff(s): Paul A. Isaacson, M.D. and Arizona Medical Association
  
  Defendant(s): State of Arizona
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (A.R.S. § 13–3603)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment that would harmonize Arizona’s pre-Roe near-total ban with later state laws that regulate legal abortions so that licensed physicians can provide the procedure. The case is stayed pending a resolution of Planned Parenthood v. Brnovich, No. C127867 (Ariz. Sup. Ct. July 22, 1971).
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (October 3, 2022)
  
  Order staying case (October 25, 2022)
Arkansas

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Arkansas
California

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

California
Colorado

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Colorado
Connecticut

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Connecticut
Delaware

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Delaware
District of Columbia

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

District of Columbia
Florida
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Florida
- Plaintiff(s): Generation to Generation, Inc., d/b/a Congregation L’Dor Va-Dor; Rabbi Arthur Waskow; and The Shalom Center
  
  Defendant(s): State of Florida; Ron DeSantis; Florida Department of Health; Joseph Ladapo, M.D.; Florida Board of Medicine; David Diamond, M.D.; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Sandra Schwemmer, D.O.; Florida Board of Nursing; Maggie Hanssen, M.H.R.S.N.; Florida Agency for Health Care Administration; Simone Marstiller, J.D.; and Ashley Moody
  
  Law(s) challenged: 15-week abortion ban (H.B. 5)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy (Art. I, § 23), 2) Free Exercise Clause (Art. 1, § 3), 3) Establishment Clause (Art. 1, § 3), 4) prohibition on penalizing the practice of Judaism (Art. 1, § 3), 5) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 9), 6) guarantee of basic rights — violates equality (Art. 1, § 2), and 7) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. I, § 4). They also claim it violates state law, specifically the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Fla. Stat. § 761.01). The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case in October 2023.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (August 9, 2022)
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida; Planned Parenthood of South, East, and North Florida; Gainesville Woman Care, LLC d/b/a Bread and Roses Women’s Health Center; A Woman’s Choice of Jacksonville, Inc.; Indian Rocks Woman’s Center, Inc. d/b/a Bread and Roses; St. Petersburg Woman’s Health Center, Inc.; Tampa Woman’s Health Center, Inc.; and Shelly Hsiao-Ying Tien, M.D., M.P.H.
  
  Defendant(s): State of Florida; Ginger Bowden Madden; Jack Campbell; John Durrett; Melissa W. Nelson; William Gladson; Bruce Bartlett; R.J. Larizza; Brian S. Kramer; Monique Worrell; Brian Haas; Katherine Fernandez Rundle; Ed Brodsky; Andrew H. Warren; Larry Basford; David A. Aronberg; Dennis W. Ward; Harold F. Pryor; Philip G. Archer; Thomas Bakkedahl; Amira D. Fox; Florida Department of Health; Joseph Ladapo, M.D.; Florida Board of Medicine; Devid Diamond, M.D.; Florida Board of Osteopathic Medicine; Sandra Schwemmer, D.O.; Florida Board of Nursing; Maggie Hansen, M.H.Sc., R.N.; Florida Agency for Health Care Administration; and Simone Marstiller, J.D.
  
  Law(s) challenged: 15-week abortion ban (H.B. 5)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s right to privacy (Art. I, § 23). A trial court temporarily blocked the ban. An intermediate appeals court then reversed the trial court, allowing the ban to take effect. The Florida Supreme Court declined to block the ban while it hears an appeal.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 1, 2022)
  
  Temporary injunction Order (July 5, 2022)
  
  Order denying motion to vacate stay (July 21, 2022)
  
  Order reversing temporary injunction (August 24, 2022)
  
  Order accepting jurisdiction (January 23, 2023)
- *Hafner v. Florida, No. 2022–14370-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022); Chotso v. Florida, No. 2022–14371-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022); Doe v. Florida, No. 2022–14372-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022); Pomerantz v. Florida, No. 2022–14373-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022); Capo v. Florida, No. 2022–14374-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 1, 2022)
  
  Plaintiff(s): Laurinda Hafner; Lama Karma Chotso; John/Jane Doe; Rabbi Gayle Pomerantz, Rabbi Robyn Fisher, and Rabbi Jason Rosenberg; and Rev. Tom Capo
  
  Defendant(s): State of Florida; Ashley Moody; Ginger Bowden Madden; Jack Campbell; John Durrett; Melissa W. Nelson; William Gladson; Bruce Bartlett; R.J. Larizza; Brian S. Kramer; Monique H. Worrell; Brian Haas; Katherine Fernandez Rundle; Ed Brodsky; Andrew H. Warren; Larry Basford; David A. Aronberg; Dennis W. Ward; Harold F. Pryor; Philip G. Archer; Thomas Bakkedahl; and Amira D. Fox
  
  Law(s) challenged: 15-week abortion ban (H.B. 5)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. I, § 4) and 2) Free Exercise Clause (Art. 1, § 3). They also claim it violates the U.S. Constitution’s 1) Freedom of Speech Clause (Amend. I), 2) Free Exercise Clause (Amend. I), and 3) Establishment Clause (Amend. I). Finally, they claim it violates state law, specifically the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Fla. Stat. § 761.01). A trial court declined to temporarily block the law.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Hafner complaint (August 1, 2022)
  
  Chotso complaint (August 1, 2022)
  
  Doe complaint (August 1, 2022)
  
  Pomerantz complaint (August 1, 2022)
  
  Capo complaint (August 1, 2022)
  
  Order denying plaintiffs’ motions for temporary injunction (March 3, 2023)
Georgia
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Georgia
- Plaintiff(s): Sistersong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective; Feminist Women’s Health Center; Planned Parenthood Southeast, Inc.; Atlanta Comprehensive Wellness Clinic; Atlanta Women’s Medical Center; Femhealth USA d/b/a Carafem; Summit Medical Associates; P.C., Carrie Cwiak, M.D., M.P.H.; Lisa Haddad, M.D., M.S., M.P.H.; Eva Lathrop, M.D., M.P.H.; and Medical Students for Choice
  
  Defendant(s): State of Georgia
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (H.B. 481)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to liberty and privacy (as guaranteed by Art. I, § 1, ¶ I (due process) and ¶ XXIX (inherent rights)) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 1, ¶ 2). They also argue that the ban is void because it violated federal constitutional precedent when it was enacted, and under Georgia jurisprudence, a subsequent change in federal law cannot revive such a law. A trial court struck down the ban as void, but the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order, upheld the ban, and remanded the case for consideration of the plaintiffs’ state constitutional claims.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 26, 2022)
  
  Order denying preliminary injunction (August 15, 2022)
  
  Order granting partial judgment on the pleadings (November 15, 2022)
  
  Stay order (November 23, 2022)
  
  Order reversing partial judgment on the pleadings (October 24, 2023)
Hawaii

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Hawaii
Idaho
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Idaho
- Petitioner(s): Jennifer Adkins, Jillaine St.Michel, Kayle Smith, Rebecca Vincen-Brown, Emily Corrigan, M.D., Julie Lyons, M.D., and Idaho Academy of Family Physicians.
  
  Respondent(s): State of Idaho, Brad Little, Raúl Labrador, and Idaho State Board of Medicine
  
  Law(s) challenged: Scope of medical exceptions to near-total abortion ban (Idaho Code Section 18–622(2)) and six-week abortion ban (Idaho Code Section 18–8801(5))
  
  Description: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the medical exceptions to Idaho’s abortion bans permit physicians to provide abortion care to pregnant people with emergent medical conditions that pose a risk to their health. They also request a ruling that any enforcement of the bans by state officials against physicians who provide abortion care to such people would be beyond the scope of the official’s authority. Additionally, they claim that the bans, as applied to pregnant people with emergent medical conditions, violate the state constitution’s 1) rights to enjoy and defend life, pursue happiness, and secure safety (Art. I., §§ 1, 13) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, §§ 1, 2). Finally, they claim that the bans, as applied to Idaho-licensed physicians treating pregnant people with emergent medical conditions, violate the state constitution’s 3) rights to acquire, possess, and protect property and due process (Art. I, §§ 1, 13). A trial court partially rejected the state’s motion to dismiss, holding that the exceptions to the abortion bans need to be interpreted through a declaratory judgment and allowing the plaintiffs’ claim that the bans violate the state constitution’s inalienable rights clause (Art. I., § 1), as applied to people with emergent medical conditions, to proceed.
  
  Key Documents:
  
  Complaint (September 11, 2023)
  
  Memorandum of Decision and Order on Motion to Dismiss (December 29, 2023)
- Petitioner(s): Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky and Caitlin Gustafson, M.D.
  
  Respondent(s): State of Idaho
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (S.B. 1309)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) separation of powers doctrine (Art. II, § 1), 2) prohibition on special legislation (Art. III, § 19), 3) guarantee of informational privacy (Art. I, §§ 1, 2, 17, 21), 4) guarantee of due process — prohibition on excessive and vague penalties (Art. I, § 13), 5) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, §§ 1, 2), and 6) fundamental right to privacy in making intimate familial decisions (Art. I, §§ 1, 13, 17, 21). After the Idaho Supreme Court temporarily blocked the ban, it later allowed the ban to take effect pending a decision on the merits. The Court then declined to permanently block the ban, reasoning that the Idaho Constitution does not implicitly provide a fundamental right to an abortion because such a right is not “deeply rooted” in the state’s traditions and history.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (March 30, 2022)
  
  Opinion (August 12, 2022)
  
  Order declining to permanently block ban (January 5, 2022)
- Petitioner(s): Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky and Caitlin Gustafson, M.D.
  
  Respondent(s): State of Idaho; Brad Little; Lawrence Wasden; Jan M. Bennetts; Grant P. Loebs; Idaho State Board of Medicine; Idaho State Board of Nursing; and Idaho State Board of Pharmacy
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (Idaho Code Section 18–622(2))
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) fundamental right to privacy in making intimate familial decisions contained in several provisions, including those regarding inherent and reserved rights (Art. I, §§ 1, 17, 21); 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, §§ 1,2); and 3) guarantee of due process clause — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 13). They also claim it violates state law, specifically the Idaho Human Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination (Idaho Code § 67–5909). The Idaho Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect pending a decision on the merits. The Court then declined to permanently block the ban, reasoning that the Idaho Constitution does not implicitly provide a fundamental right to an abortion because such a right is not “deeply rooted” in the state’s traditions and history.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (June 27, 2022)
  
  Opinion (August 12, 2022)
  
  Order declining to permanently block ban (January 5, 2023)
- Petitioner(s): Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky and Caitlin Gustafson, M.D.
  
  Respondent(s): State of Idaho; Brad Little; Lawrence Wasden; Jan M. Bennetts; Grant P. Loebs; Idaho State Board of Medicine; Idaho State Board of Nursing; and Idaho State Board of Pharmacy
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (Idaho Code Sections 18–8804 and 18–8805)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) fundamental right to privacy in making intimate familial decisions contained in several provisions, including those regarding inherent and reserved rights (Art. I, §§ 1, 17, 21); 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, §§ 1,2); and 3) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 13). They also claim it violates state law, specifically the Idaho Human Rights Act’s prohibition against sex discrimination (Idaho Code § 67–5909). The Idaho Supreme Court allowed the ban to take effect pending a decision on the merits. The Court then declined to permanently block the ban, reasoning that the Idaho Constitution does not implicitly provide a fundamental right to an abortion because such a right is not “deeply rooted” in the state’s traditions and history.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 25, 2022)
  
  Opinion (August 12, 2022)
  
  Order declining to permanently block ban (January 5, 2023)
Illinois

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Illinois
Indiana
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Indiana
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky; Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation; Whole Woman’s Health Alliance; All-Options, Inc.; and Amy Caldwell, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana; Hendricks County Prosecutor; Lake County Prosecutor; Marion County Prosecutor; Monroe County Prosecutor; St. Joseph County Prosecutor; Tippecanoe County Prosecutor; and Warrick County Prosecutor
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (S.B. 1)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) substantive due process right to privacy included in the inherent rights clause (Art. I, § 1), 2) guarantee of equal privileges and immunities (Art. I, § 23), and 3) due course of law clause through its unconstitutionally vague language (Art. I, § 12). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. After keeping the injunction temporarily in place while it heard an appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on the merits of whether the Indiana Constitution protects a right to abortion and vacated the trial court’s preliminary injunction. According to the court, the state constitution’s due process right to privacy (Art. I, § 1) does not protect the right to abortion except when necessary to protect the patient’s life or to protect a patient from a serious health risk. Though the court acknowledged that the plaintiffs had previously withdrawn their vagueness claim (Art. I, § 12), it declined to rule on their privileges and immunities claim (Art. I, § 23) since that claim was not part of the appeal. The Indiana Supreme Court denied the request for rehearing, allowing the ban to take effect. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint to challenge both the ban’s medical exception for patients facing a serious health risk and its requirement that abortion care occur in hospitals or an ambulatory outpatient surgical center majority owned by a hospital as violations of the state constitution’s inherent rights clause.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (August 31, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (September 22, 2022)
  
  Order granting transfer and extending preliminary injunction (October 12, 2022)
  
  Opinion vacating preliminary injunction (June 30, 2023)
  
  Petition for Rehearing (July 31, 2023)
  
  Order Denying Petition for Rehearing (August 22, 2023)
  
  Amended Complaint (November 9, 2023)
- Plaintiff(s): Anonymous Plaintiffs 1–5 and Hoosier Jews for Choice
  
  Defendant(s): The individual members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana; Marion County Prosecutor; Lake County Prosecutor; Monroe County Prosecutor; St. Joseph County Prosecutor; and Tippecanoe County Prosecutor
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (S.B. 1)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates state law, specifically the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Indiana Code § 34–13–9–8). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. The Indiana Supreme Court declined to fast track an appeal of the trial court’s ruling, requiring it to proceed in an intermediate appellate court. The state has also appealed a trial court order that subsequently granted class certification to all people in the state whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by the ban.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (September 8, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (December 2, 2022)
  
  Order denying motion to transfer (January 30, 2023)
  
  Order granting class certification (June 6, 2023)
Iowa
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Iowa
- Petitioner(s): Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc.; Emma Goldman Clinic; and Sara Traxler, M.D.
  
  Respondent(s): Kim Reynolds ex rel. State of Iowa and Iowa Board of Medicine
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (HF 732)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process (Art. I, § 9), 2) guarantee of inalienable rights, including life, liberty, safety, and happiness (Art. I, § 1), and 3) guarantee of equal protection by singling out abortion from all other medical procedures and discriminating against women on the bases of their sex and gender stereotypes (Art. I, §§ 1, 6). A trial court temporarily blocked the ban. An appeal is pending before the Iowa Supreme Court.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (July 12, 2023)
  
  Ruling on Petitioners’ Emergency Motion for Temporary Injunction (July 17, 2023)
- Petitioner(s): Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc.; Emma Goldman Clinic; and Jill Meadows, M.D.
  
  Respondant(s): Kim Reynolds ex rel. State of Iowa and Iowa Board of Medicine
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (Iowa Code section 146C)
  
  Description: The governor filed a motion in a closed case from 2019 asking a trial court to dissolve a permanent block of the state’s six-week ban. Plaintiffs respond that Iowa procedural rules do not allow for such a request and that it is precluded by Iowa Supreme Court precedent. The trial court declined to dissolve the injunction. The Iowa Supreme Court subsequently issued a split decision on the state’s appeal, which leaves in place the lower court decision refusing to reinstate the ban.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Motion to dissolve permanent injunction (August 11, 2022)
  
  Opposition to motion to dissolve permanent injunction (September 12, 2022)
  
  Ruling on motion to dissolve permanent injunction (December 12, 2022)
  
  Order (June 16, 2023)
Kansas

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Kansas
Kentucky
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Kentucky
- Plaintiff(s): Jane Doe; and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc.
  
  Defendant(s): Daniel Cameron; Eric Friedlander; Michael S. Rodman; and Gerina D. Whethers
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (KRS 311.772) and six-week ban (KRS 311.7701–11)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the state’s near-total ban and six-week ban violate the state constitution’s rights to privacy, self-determination, and autonomy as contained in the state constitution’s guarantees of liberty (§§ 1, 2). They also claim that the state’s near-total ban violates the state constitution’s prohibition on unlawful delegation of legislative authority to define the scope of Kentucky criminal law (§§ 27, 28, 29) and its prohibition on laws becoming effective upon the approval of an entity other than the General Assembly unless the state constitution otherwise provides (§ 60). The case was voluntarily dismissed after the individual plaintiff’s pregnancy ended.
  
  Key documents
  
  Complaint (December 8, 2023)
- Plaintiff(s): Lisa Sobel; Jessica Kalb; and Sarah Baron
  
  Defendant(s): Daniel Cameron and Thomas B. Wine
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (KRS 311.77 2)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) prohibition on unintelligible laws contained in the legislature’s duty to executive and judicial branches (§ 27–29); 2) prohibition on sectarian preferences (§ 5); and protection against the diminishment of privileges, rights, and capacities based on religious belief or disbelief (§ 5). They also claim it violates the U.S. Constitution’s protections against vague laws (Amend. I, V, XIV). Finally, they claim it violates state law, specifically the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act (KRS 446.350). A federal judge rejected the state’s request to remove the challenge to federal court.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (October 6, 2022)
  
  Notice of removal (October 26, 2022)
  
  Order remanding case to state court (December 13, 2022)
- Plaintiff(s): EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C.; Ernest Marshall, M.D.; and Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky, Inc.
  
  Defendant(s): Daniel Cameron
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (KRS 311.772) and six-week ban (KRS 311.7701–11)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the state’s near-total ban (triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe) violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy as contained in guarantees of liberty (§§ 1(1), 1(3), 2); 2) liberty right to self-determination (§§ 1(1), 1(3), 2); 3) prohibition on unlawful delegation of legislative authority to define the scope of Kentucky criminal law (§§ 27–29); 4) prohibition on enacting a ban that doesn’t require the Kentucky General Assembly’s approval to take effect (§ 60); 5) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (§ 2); and 6) prohibition on unintelligible laws (§ 27–29).
  
  Plaintiffs also claim that the state’s six-week ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy as contained in guarantees of liberty (§§ 1(1), 1(3), 2) and 2) liberty right to self-determination (§§ 1(1), 1(3), 2).
  
  After a trial court preliminarily blocked the bans, an intermediate appeals court reversed the trial court, allowing the bans to take effect. The Kentucky Supreme Court then declined to reinstate the temporary injunction, reasoning that the plaintiffs did not have standing to assert the rights of their patients and could not bring related constitutional claims against the six-week and near-total bans while declining to address whether the Kentucky Constitution protects abortion. The Court, however, concluded that the plaintiffs did have standing to bring non-delegation and General Assembly approval claims against the near-total ban on behalf of themselves and remanded the case to the trial court. The parties then agreed to the dismissal of the case.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 27, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary restraining order (June 29, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary injunction (July 22, 2022)
  
  Stay of temporary injunction (August 1, 2022)
  
  Order denying emergency relief (August 18, 2022)
  
  Order affirming and remanding case to the trial court (February 16, 2023)
  
  Order dismissing without prejudice (June 27, 2023)
Louisiana
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Louisiana
- Plaintiff(s): June Medical Services, LLC d/b/a Hope Medical Group for Women; Kathaleen Pittman; and Medical Students for Choice
  
  Defendant(s): Jeff Landry and Courtney N. Phillips
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (La. R.S. §§ 40:1061 and 14:87.7) and 15-week ban (La. R.S. §§ 14:87.8)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the bans (triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe)violate the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — the laws are insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 2) and 2) prohibition on unlawful delegation of legislative authority to determine whether the bans have gone into effect (Art. I, § 1). After a trial court preliminarily blocked the bans, an intermediate appeals court stayed the injunction pending appeal, allowing the bans to take effect. The Louisiana Supreme Court summarily upheld the intermediate appellate court ruling after which, the intermediate appellate court reversed the preliminary injunction.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (June 24, 2022)
  
  Temporary restraining order (July 11, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (July 21, 2022)
  
  Order granting writ (July 29, 2022)
  
  Denial for reinstatement (August 12, 2022)
  
  Order reversing preliminary injunction (August 16, 2023)
Maine

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Maine
Maryland

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Maryland
Massachusetts

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Massachusetts
Michigan
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Michigan
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood of Michigan and Sarah Wallett, M.D., M.P.H., FACOG
  
  Defendant(s): Attorney general of the State of Michigan
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (MCL 750.14)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. 1, § 17), 2) guarantee of due process — liberty and bodily integrity (Art. 1, § 17), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. 1, § 2), 4) guarantee of retained rights — liberty and privacy (Art. 1, § 23), and 5) guarantee of due process — liberty and privacy (Art. 1, § 17). They also claim that it violates state law, specifically the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act’s prohibition on sex discrimination in public accommodations and services (MCL 37.2302). A trial court permanently blocked the Michigan attorney general from enforcing the ban. An appeal pending before an intermediate appellate court was voluntarily dismissed, ending the case.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (April 7, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (May 17, 2022)
  
  Order granting permanent injunction (September 7, 2022)
  
  Order dismissing appeal (December 14, 2022)
- Plaintiff(s): Gretchen Whitmer
  
  Defendant(s): James R. Linderman; David S. Leyton; Carol A. Siemon; Jeffrey S. Getting; Christopher R. Becker; Peter J. Lucido; Matthew J. Wiese; Karen D. McDonald; John A. McColgan; Eli Noam Savit; and Kym L. Worthy
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (MCL 750.14)
  
  Description: Plaintiff claims that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy as guaranteed by the due process clause, which protects liberty and bodily integrity (Art. 1, § 17), and the unenumerated rights clause (Art. 1 § 23) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. 1, § 2). Upon filing her complaint in a trial court, Governor Whitmer asked the Michigan Supreme Court to assume jurisdiction over the case and decide whether the Michigan Constitution protects the right to abortion. In light of an amendment to the Michigan Constitution protecting the right to reproductive autonomy that voters approved in November 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court has dismissed the case.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (April 7, 2022)
  
  Governor Whitmer’s request for Michigan Supreme Court review (April 7, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary restraining order (August 1, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (August 19, 2022)
  
  Order dismissing case (January 20, 2023)
Minnesota

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Minnesota
Mississippi
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Mississippi
- Plaintiff(s): Jackson Women’s Health Organization and Sacheen Carr-Ellis, M.D., M.P.H.
  
  Defendant(s): Thomas E. Dobbs, M.D., M.P.H.; Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure; Kenneth Cleveland; M.D., Jody E. Owens II; Gerald A. Mumford; and Catoria P. Martin
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total ban (Miss. Code Ann. § 41–41–45) and six-week ban (Miss. Code Ann. § 41–41–34)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the bans violate the state constitution’s right to privacy encompassed in the inherent rights clause (Art. 3, § 32). A trial court declined to preliminarily block the bans, and the Mississippi Supreme Court declined to block the bans on appeal. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed their petition to the Mississippi Supreme Court after the court declined to act expeditiously on their appeal.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 27, 2022)
  Order denying preliminary injunction (July 5, 2022)
  Order from Mississippi Supreme Court denying emergency relief (July 8, 2022)
  Plaintiffs’ notice of dismissal (July 19, 2022)
Missouri
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Missouri
- Plaintiff(s): The Reverend Traci Blackmon; The Reverend Barbara Phifer; Maharat Rori Picker Neiss; The Reverend Molly Housh Gordon; The Right Reverend Deon K. Johnson, Eleventh Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Missouri; Rabbi James Bennett; The Reverend Holly McKissick; the Reverend Krista Taves; the Reverend Cynthia S. Bumb; Rabbi Susan Talve; Rabbi Douglas Alpert; The Reverend Janice Barnes; and Rabbi Andrea Goldstein
  
  Defendant(s): State of Missouri; Michael L. Parson; Andrew Bailey; The Prosecuting Attorneys for Boone, Greene, Jackson, Jasper, and St. Charles Counties, and The Circuit Attorney for the City of St. Louis; Marc K. Taormina; Naveed Razzaque; Jeffrey D. Carter; James A. Direnna; Jeffrey S. Glaser; Jade D. James-Halbert; Katherine J. Mathews; David E. Tannehill; Paula F. Nickelson
  
  Law(s) challenged: 1) Near-total abortion ban (H.B. 126); 2) ban on particular reasons for obtaining abortion care (H.B. 126); 3) 72-hour waiting period (H.B. 1307); 4) requirement that the physician who provides an abortion must first provide state-mandated information on abortion during the waiting period (S.B. 5); 5) medication abortion restrictions (S.B. 5); and 6) concurrent original jurisdiction provision (S.B. 5)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that Missouri’s near-total ban and other restrictions violate the state constitution’s 1) prohibition on the establishment of religion or the coercion of any individual to participate in prayer and religious activities (Art. I, § 5), 2) prohibition on compelling any person to support a system of worship or to support a minister or teacher of worship (Art. I, § 6), and 3) prohibition on using public funds to support religion and preferencing a particular faith (Art. I, § 7).
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (January 19, 2023)
Montana

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Montana
Nebraska
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Nebraska
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. and Sarah Traxler, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): Mike Hilgers; Jim Pilllen; Dannette Smith; Charity Menefee; and Timothy Tesmer
  
  Law(s) challenged: 12-week ban (L.B. 574)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that Nebraska’s 12-week ban violates the state constitution’s prohibition on bills that contain more than one subject (Art. III, § 14) because L.B. 574 contains both an abortion ban and restrictions on gender-affirming care for transgender youths. A trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs have appealed the trial court’s decision.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (May 30, 2023)
  
  Order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss (August 11, 2023)
Nevada

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Nevada
New Hampshire

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

New Hampshire
New Jersey

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

New Jersey
New Mexico
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

New Mexico
- Petitioner(s): State of New Mexico ex rel. Raúl Torrez, New Mexico Attorney General
  
  Respondent(s): Board of County Commissioners for Lea County; Board of County Commissioners for Roosevelt County; City of Clovis; and City of Hobbs
  
  Law(s) challenged: City and county ordinances that 1) impose licensing requirements on facilities in which abortions or performed or abortion medications are distributed or ingested and/or 2) that make it unlawful to use the mail, an express service, a common carrier, or an interactive computer service to deliver items designed to produce abortions (No. 1147 (City of Hobbs), No. 2184–2022 (City of Clovis), No. 99 (Lea County), No. 2023–01 (Roosevelt County)). Roosevelt County’s ordinance can also be privately enforced.
  
  Description: Petitioner claims that the ordinances effectively ban abortions in violation of the state constitution’s 1) Equal Rights Amendment (Art. II, § 18), 2) guarantees of liberty and due process, which include privacy and bodily autonomy (Art. II, §§ 10, 18), and 3) protection of inherent rights (Art. II, § 4). Petitioner also claims that the ordinances are preempted by state law. In a summary order, the New Mexico Supreme Court temporarily blocked the ordinances pending a decision on the merits.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (January 23, 2023)
  
  Order staying ordinances (March 31, 2023)
New York

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

New York
North Carolina

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

North Carolina
North Dakota
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

North Dakota
- Plaintiff(s): Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic and Kathryn L. Eggleston, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): Drew H. Wrigley and Birch P. Burdick
  
  Law(s) challenged: 2007 near-total abortion ban (North Dakota Century Code Section 12.1–31–12); 2023 near-total abortion ban (S.B. 2150)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the state’s near-total ban violates the state constitution’s guarantee of inalienable rights, including life, liberty, safety, and happiness, which are protected through the due process clause (Art. I, §§ 1, 12). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. On appeal, the North Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the trial court did not properly assess all the factors for issuing preliminary relief and ordered the trial court to reassess whether each of those factors had been satisfied. Upon doing so, the trial court again blocked the ban. The North Dakota Supreme Court subsequently upheld the trial court’s preliminary injunction of the ban. The Court first concluded that the text of the state constitution and North Dakota’s history and traditions reveal that there is a fundamental right to an abortion when necessary to preserve the life or health of the patient. It then determined that the ban is not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. The Court declined to rule on whether the state constitution protects the right to abortion beyond a situation in which the pregnant person’s life or health is at risk.
  
  The plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint to challenge a second near-total ban passed by the legislature in 2023, which they claim violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — the exceptions to the ban are insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 12) and 2) guarantee of inalienable rights, including life, liberty, safety, and happiness, which are protected through the due process clause, because the ban prohibits abortions when needed to protect the pregnant person’s mental health or when the fetus is unlikely to survive the pregnancy and sustain life after birth (Art. I, §§ 1, 12).
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 6, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (August 25, 2022)
  
  Order from North Dakota Supreme Court (October 11, 2022)
  
  Findings on Substantial Probability Factor (October 31, 2022)
  
  Order upholding preliminary injunction (March 16, 2023)
  
  Amended complaint (June 12, 2023)
Ohio
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Ohio
- Plaintiff(s): Preterm-Cleveland; Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region; Sharon Liner, M.D.; Planned Parenthood Greater Ohio; Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation; and Northeast Ohio Women’s Center, LLC, d/b/a Toledo Women’s Center
  
  Defendant(s): David Yost; Bruce T. Vanderhoff, M.D., M.B.A; Kim G. Rothermel, M.D.; Bruce R. Saferin, D.P.M.; Michael C. O’Malley; Joseph T. Deters; G. Gary Tyack; Mathias Heck, Jr.; Julia R. Bates; and Sherri Bevan Walsh
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (S.B. 23)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) fundamental right of individual liberty as guaranteed in the inalienable rights clause and Health Care Freedom Amendment (Art. I, §§ 1, 16, 21), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 2), and 3) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 16). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. An intermediate appeals court rejected the Defendants’ appeal of the trial court’s order. The Ohio Supreme Court agreed to hear the state’s appeal limited to the questions of whether the appeal was premature, and whether the challengers have standing. It declined to address on this appeal whether the Ohio Constitution guarantees a right to abortion before. later dismissing the appeal and remanding to the trial court, in light of the state constitution’s new reproductive freedom amendment. The plaintiffs have moved to file an amended complaint to add a new claim under the amendment.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (September 2, 2022)
  
  Temporary restraining order (September 14, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (October 12, 2022)
  
  Ohio court of appeals judgement (December 16, 2022)
  
  Order accepting appeal (March 14, 2023)
  
  Slip Opinion (December 14, 2023)
- Relator(s): State ex rel. Pre-Term Cleveland; State ex rel. Planned Parenthood Southwest Ohio Region; State ex rel. Sharon Liner, M.D., State ex rel. Planned Parenthood Greater Ohio; State ex rel. Women’s Med Group Professional Corporation; State ex rel. Northeast Ohio Women’s Center, LLC; and State ex rel. Toledo Women’s Center
  
  Respondent(s): David Yost; Bruce T. Vanderhoff, M.D., M.B.A.; Kim G. Rothermel, M.D.; Bruce R. Saferin, D.P.M.; Michael C. O’Malley; Joseph T. Deters; G. Gary Tyack; Mathias Heck, Jr.; and Julia R. Bates
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (S.B. 23)
  
  Description: Relators claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) fundamental right of individual liberty as guaranteed in the inalienable rights clause and Health Care Freedom Amendment (Art. I, §§ 1, 16, 21), 2) guarantee of due course of law (Art. I, § 16), and 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 2). Relators voluntarily dismissed their case after the Ohio Supreme Court summarily declined to temporarily block the ban.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 29, 2022)
  
  Order denying request for emergency stay (July 1, 2022)
  
  Order dismissing case (September 12, 2022)
Oklahoma
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Oklahoma
- Plaintiff(s): Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC; Alan Braid, M.D.; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma
  
  Defendant(s): John O’Connor; David Prater; Steve Kunzweiler; Lyle Kelsey; Katie Templeton; Lance Frye; and Justin Wilson
  
  Law(s) challenged: 1) 2021 total abortion ban (H.B. 1102); 2) six-week abortion ban (H.B. 2441); 3) OB/GYN requirement (H.B. 1904); 4) restrictions on the provision of medication abortion (S.B. 778); 5) restrictions for manufacturers, distributors, and providers of medication abortion (S.B. 779); and 6) 2022 near-total abortion ban (S.B. 612)
  
  Description: After Oklahoma courts temporarily blocked five abortion bills in 2021 in response to the plaintiffs’ original petition, plaintiffs supplemented their petition to claim that the state’s near-total abortion ban passed in 2022 violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — improper purpose of burdening right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), and 4) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, § 59). In November 2023 the Oklahoma Supreme Court held on the merits of the temporary injunction that the restrictions on OB/GYNs and medication abortion challenged in the original petition likely violated the Oklahoma Constitution and should remain blocked.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (Sept. 2, 2021)
  
  Order granting in part and denying in part request for temporary injunction (October 4, 2021)
  
  First supplemental petition (April 28, 2022)
  
  Order directing trial court to enter temporary injunction (Nov. 14, 2023)
- Petitioner(s): Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC; Alan Braid, M.D.; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma
  
  Respondent(s): State of Oklahoma; Nichole Cooper; Tammi Miller; Angela Nuttall; Tammie Patzowsky; Donna Howell; Christy Matli; Donna Alexander; Patti Barger; Marie Hirst; Renee Bryant; Lesa Rousey-Daniels; Laura Sumner; Metzi Brown; Marilyn Williams; LaDonna Flowers; Robert Morales; Terry Kelley; Deborah Mason; Amanda Vanorsdol; Staci Hunter; Caroline Weaver; Rachelle Rogers; Sally Wayland; Janelle Sharp; Laura Lee; Lisa Hannah; Deana Kilian; Jeanna Scott; Stacy Macias; Susan Breon; Tina Oaks; Ashley Sanford; Tina Swailes; Kimberley Berry; Cassandra Slover; Marilee Thornton; Lisa Markus; Kay Richards; Melinda Brinlee; Melba Hall; Cindy Kirby; Cheryl Smith; Wendy Holland; Shauna Hoffman; Wanda Pearce; Jenifer Clinton; Kristel Gray; Kathy Gray; Lisa Rodebush; Jodi Jennings; Robyn Boswell; Hillary Vorndran; April Frauenberger; Sherri Foreman; Rick Warren; Charly Criner; Jennifer Burd; Cassie Key; Ila Potts; Lori Allen; Pam Smith; Karen Dunnigan; Valerie Ueltzen; Tina Freeman; Jan Bailey; Cathi Edwards; Kimberly Davis; Gina Cox; Melody Harper; M. Renee Ellis; Kevin Stevens; Don Newberry; Jim Hight; Jill Spitzer; Lynda Vermillion; Staci Davey; and Tammy Roberts
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (S.B. 1503) and near-total abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (H.B. 4327)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the state’s six-week ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post facto laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argue that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
  
  Plaintiffs further claim that the near-total ban violates the state constitution’s 1) guarantee of due process — right to choose to terminate a pregnancy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 7), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), 3) guarantee of equal protection (Art. II, § 7), 4) right to open courts (Art. II, § 6), 5) prohibition on special laws (Art. V, §§ 46, 59), 6) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. II, §7), 7) prohibition on ex post facto laws (Art. II, § 15), 8) Freedom of Speech Clause (Art. II, § 22), and 9) prohibition on unreasonable access to patient medical records (Art. II, § 30). They also argue that Oklahoma precedent prevents the legislature from delegating the state’s police power to private citizens.
  
  The Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to temporarily block the two bans pending a decision on whether to take jurisdiction of the case and rule on the merits. The Court subsequently assumed jurisdiction over the case and applied its recent precedent holding that the Oklahoma constitution protects abortion when necessary to preserve a patient’s life. It held that both the private enforcement bans had unconstitutionally narrow medical exceptions that could not be severed from the remainder of the statutes and struck them down. The Court did not rule on whether the state constitution protects the right to abortion beyond a situation in which the patient’s life is at risk.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (April 28, 2022)
  
  Order denying request for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction (May 3, 2022)
  
  First supplemental application for original jurisdiction and petition for declaratory and injunctive relief and/or writ of prohibition (May 26, 2022)
  
  Order denying request for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction (June 27, 2022)
  
  Order assuming jurisdiction and granting declaratory relief (May 31, 2023)
- Petitioner(s): Oklahoma Call for Reproductive Justice; Tulsa Women’s Reproductive Clinic, LLC; Alan Braid, M.D.; Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, Inc.; and Planned Parenthood of Arkansas and Eastern Oklahoma
  
  Respondent(s): John O’Connor; David Prater; Steve Kunzweiler; Lyle Kelsey; Katie Templeton; and Keith Reed
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (Oklahoma Stat. Tit. 21, section 861) and 2022 near-total abortion ban (S.B. 612)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the bans violate the state constitution’s 1) inherent right to personal autonomy and bodily integrity (Art. II, § 2), 2) guarantee of due process — right to health (Art. II, § 7), and 3) guarantee of due process — the laws are insufficiently clear (Art. II, § 7). They also seek a declaratory judgment that the pre-Roe ban was repealed by implication. The Oklahoma Supreme Court summarily denied the plaintiffs’ request to block the bans pending a decision on whether to take jurisdiction of the case and rule on the merits. The Court subsequently assumed jurisdiction over the case and ruled that the text of the state constitution and Oklahoma’s history and traditions reveal that there is an inherent right to an abortion when necessary to preserve the life of the patient. It then determined that while the pre-Roe ban is constitutional, the 2022 ban is unconstitutional as to its requirement that a pregnant person must wait until they are experiencing a medical emergency before seeking a life-saving abortion. It also concluded that the pre-Roe ban was not unconstitutionally vague nor repealed by implication. The Court declined to rule on whether the state constitution protects the right to abortion beyond a situation in which the pregnant woman’s life is at risk.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (July 1, 2022)
  
  Order denying request for temporary restraining order and temporary injunction (September 12, 2022)
  
  Order assuming jurisdiction and granting declaratory relief in part (March 21, 2023)
Oregon

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Oregon
Pennsylvania

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Pennsylvania
Rhode Island

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Rhode Island
South Carolina
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

South Carolina
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, Katherine Farris, M.D., Greenville Women’s Clinic, and Terry L. Buffkin, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): State of South Carolina, Alan Wilson, Edward Simmer, Anne G. Cook, Stephen I. Schabel, Ronald Januchowski, George S. Dilts, Dion Franga, Richard Howell, Robert Kosciusko, Theresa Mills-Floyd, Jennifer R. Root, Christopher C. Wright, Samuel H. McNutt, Sallie Beth Todd, Tamara Day, Jonella Davis, Kelli Garber, Lindsey K. Mitcham, Rebecca Morrison, Kay Swisher, Robert J. Wolff, Scarlett A. Wilson, Byron E. Gipson, and William Walter Wilkins, III
  
  Law(s) Challenged: Six-week abortion ban (S.B. 474)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs requested that the South Carolina Supreme Court take original jurisdiction and issue a declaratory judgment, construing an ambiguous definition of “fetal heart” and confirming that the relevant point in time addressed by the ban is when a heart has formed, which is approximately nine weeks after a patient’s last menstrual period, consistent with the medical consensus. In the alternative, plaintiffs seek a ruling that the definition of “fetal heartbeat” is unconstitutionally vague in violation of the due process clause (Art. I § 3). In November 2023 the South Carolina Supreme Court declined to take original jurisdiction and block the law.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (Sept. 14, 2023)
  
  Order declining to take original jurisdiction (Nov. 14, 2023)
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; Katherine Farris, M.D.; Greenville Women’s Clinic; and Terry L. Buffkin, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): State of South Carolina; Alan Wilson; Edward Simmer; Anne G. Cook; Stephen I. Schabel; Ronald Januchowski; George S. Dilts; Dion Franga; Richard Howell; Robert Kosciusko; Theresa Mills-Floyd; Jennifer R. Root; Christopher C. Wright; Samuel H. McNutt; Sallie Beth Todd; Tamara Day; Jonella Davis; Kelli Garber; Lindsey K. Mitcham; Rebecca Morrison; Kay Swisher; Robert J. Wolff; Scarlett A. Wilson; Byron E. Gipson; and William Walter Wilkins III
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (S.B. 474)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) explicit right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), and 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3). Additionally, they claim that the death and substantial injury exception to the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3), and 4) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 3). Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim that the rape exception violates the state constitution’s 1) right to informational privacy (Art. I, § 10) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3). Moreover, they claim that the fatal fetal anomaly exception violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3), and 4) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 3). The plaintiffs also claim that ban’s provision barring Planned Parenthood and its affiliates from using state funds to provide abortions or related services violates 1) the state constitution’s ban on legislation prescribing punishments without a trial (Art. I, § 4), 2) the state constitution’s guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), and 3) federal law allowing Medicaid recipients to seek care from any qualified healthcare provider willing to provide services (42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)). Finally, they claim that the ban is void because it conflicts with state supreme court precedent holding that a nearly-identical 6-week ban violated the South Carolina constitution. After a trial court temporarily blocked the ban, the South Carolina Supreme Court vacated the injunction and held that the ban is constitutional.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (May 25, 2023)
  
  Order granting temporary injunction (May 26, 2023)
  
  Order declining to lift the injunction and transferring the case to the South Carolina Supreme Court for final resolution (June 6, 2023)
  
  Order vacating injunction and declaring act constitutional (August 23, 2023)
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood South Atlantic; Katherine Farris, M.D.; Greenville Women’s Clinic; and Terry L. Buffkin, M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): State of South Carolina; Alan Wilson; Edward Simmer; Anne G. Cook; Stephen I. Schabel; Ronald Januchowski; Jim C. Chow; George S. Dilts; Dion Franga; Richard Howell; Theresa Mills-Floyd; Jennifer R. Root; Christopher C. Wright; Scarlett A. Wilson; Byron E. Gipson; and William Walter Wilkins III
  
  Law(s) challenged: Six-week abortion ban (S.B. 1)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) explicit right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), and 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3). They also claim the death and permanent injury exception to the ban violates the state constitution’s 1) right to privacy (Art. I, § 10), 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3), 3) guarantee of due process — life and liberty (Art. I, § 3), and 4) guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art. I, § 3). Finally, they claim the rape exception violates the state constitution’s 1) right to informational privacy (Art. I, § 10) and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 3). After assuming jurisdiction over the case, the South Carolina Supreme Court temporarily blocked the ban pending a decision on the merits. The Court then permanently blocked the ban, reasoning that it violated the South Carolina constitution’s right to privacy. According to the Court, the state’s ban was an unreasonable limitation on that right for reasons including that six weeks is not sufficient time for women to determine whether they are even pregnant, let alone take steps to terminate their pregnancies. The state filed a petition for rehearing with the South Carolina Supreme Court, which the Court denied.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 13, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary injunction (August 17, 2022)
  
  Order permanently blocking ban (January 5, 2023)
  
  Petition for rehearing (January 30, 2023)
  
  Order denying petition for rehearing (February 8, 2023)
South Dakota

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

South Dakota
Tennessee
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Tennessee
- Plaintiff(s): Nicole Blackmon, Allyson Phillips, Kaitlyn Dulong, Heather Maune, M.D., Laura Andreson, D.O.
  
  Defendant(s): State of Tennessee, Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners, and Melanie Blake, M.D.
  
  Law(s) challenged: Scope of medical exceptions to near-total abortion ban (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39–15–213)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the medical exceptions to Tennessee’s abortion ban permit physicians to provide abortion care to pregnant people with emergent medical conditions that pose a risk to their health. They also claim that Tennessee’s abortion ban, as applied to pregnant people with emergent medical conditions, violates the state constitution’s 1) right to life (Art. I, § 8); and 2) guarantee of equal protection (Art. I, § 8; Art. XI, § 8). Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that Tennessee’s abortion ban, as applied to physicians treating pregnant people with emergent medical conditions, violates the state constitution’s guarantee of due process (Art. I, § 8).
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (September 11, 2023)
Texas
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Texas
- Plaintiff(s): Amanda Zurawski; Lauren Miller; Lauren Hall; Anna Zargarian; Ashley Brandt; Damla Karsan, M.D.; and Judy Levison, M.D., M.P.H.
  
  Defendant(s): State of Texas; Attorney General of Texas; Ken Paxton; Texas Medical Board; and Stephen Brint Carlton
  
  Law(s) challenged: Scope of emergency medical exceptions to pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (1925 Tex. Crim. Stat. 1191), near-total abortion ban triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court overruling Roe (Tex. Health & Safety Code § 170A.002(a)), and six-week abortion ban that only permits private enforcement (S.B. 8)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs seek a declaration and injunctive relief from the court clarifying that the bans do not prevent physicians from providing abortions under statutory exceptions for “medical emergencies” when patients face risks to their life or health. They also request a ruling that any enforcement of the bans by state officials contrary to the court’s declaration would be beyond the scope of the officials’ authority. Additionally, they claim that, to the extent the bans could be read to prohibit abortions in the case of medical emergencies, the bans violate the state constitution’s 1) due course of law clause as to both the rights of patients to abortion when their life or health is at risk and the rights of physicians to perform such abortions (Art. I, § 19) and 2) guarantees of equal rights and privileges and equality based on sex (Art. I, §§ 3 and 3a). A trial court temporarily blocked enforcement of the bans against pregnant people with emergent medical conditions. It separately found that the enforcement provisions of S.B. 8 are unconstitutional. The state’s appeal automatically stayed the injunction, and the Texas Supreme Court has agreed to hear an accelerated appeal.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Petition (March 6, 2023)
  
  Amended petition (May 22, 2023)
  
  Order issuing temporary injunction (August 4, 2023)
- Plaintiff(s): Whole Woman’s Health; Whole Woman’s Health Alliance; Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC d/b/a Alamo Women’s Reproductive Services; Brookside Women’s Medical Center PA d/b/a Brookside Women’s Health Center and Austin Women’s Health Center; Houston Women’s Clinic; Houston Women’s Reproductive Services; and Southwestern Women’s Surgery Center
  
  Defendant(s): Ken Paxton; Texas Medical Board; Stephen Brint Carlton; Texas Board of Nursing; Katherine A. Thomas; Texas Health and Services Commission; Cecile Erwin Young; Texas Board of Pharmacy; Tim Tucker; José Garza; Joe Gonzales; Kim Ogg; John Creuzot; Sharon Wilson; Ricardo Rodriguez, Jr.; and Greg Wilson
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (1925 Texas Penal Code arts.1191–1194, 1196)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear and lack of notice (Art. I, § 19). Plaintiffs also claim that the state cannot enforce the ban because it has been repealed. Additionally, they claim that any enforcement of the ban would be outside the scope of a state official’s authority. After a trial court temporarily blocked the ban, the Texas Supreme Court allowed the civil enforcement provision of the ban to take effect. Plaintiffs then voluntarily dismissed the case after the state’s trigger ban took effect.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 27, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary restraining order (June 28, 2022)
  
  Order granting stay (July 1, 2022)
  
  Plaintiffs’ dismissal (October 5, 2022)
Utah
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Utah
- Plaintiff(s): Planned Parenthood Association of Utah
  
  Defendant(s): State of Utah; Sean D. Reyes; Spencer Cox; and Mark B. Steinagel
  
  Law(s) challenged: Near-total abortion ban (Utah Code Ann. tit. 76, ch. 7A) and ban on performing abortions outside of hospitals (H.B. 467).
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the near-total abortion ban (triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe) violates the state constitution’s 1) right to determine family composition and to parent (Art. I, §§ 2, 25, and 27), 2) Equal Rights Amendment (Art. IV, § 1), 3) right to uniform operation of laws (Art. I, §§ 2, 24), 4) right to bodily integrity and privacy (Art. I, §§ 1, 7, 11), 5) right of conscience (Art. I, § 4), and 6) right to privacy (Art. I, §§ 1, 14). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. The defendants appealed to the Utah Supreme Court, which has kept the injunction temporarily in place pending a decision on the merits.
  
  The plaintiffs subsequently requested that the trial court also allow them to challenge the hospital-only requirement, which they claim functionally bans abortion and violates the state constitution’s 1) right to determine family composition and to parent (Art. I, §§ 2, 25, and 27), 2) Equal Rights Amendment (Art. IV, § 1), 3) right to uniform operation of laws (Art. I, §§ 2, 24), 4) right to bodily integrity and privacy (Art. I, §§ 1, 7, 11), and 5) right to privacy (Art. I, §§ 1, 14). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 25, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary restraining order (July 27, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (near-total ban) (July 19, 2022)
  
  Order granting appeal and denying stay of preliminary injunction (October 3, 2022)
  
  Motion to file supplemental complaint (April 3, 2023)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (hospital-only requirement) (May 2, 2023)
Vermont

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Vermont
Virginia

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Virginia
Washington

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Washington
West Virginia
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

West Virginia
- Plaintiff(s): Women’s Health Center of West Virginia; Dr. John Doe; Debra Beatty; Danielle Maness; and Katie Quiñonez
  
  Defendant(s): Charles T. Miller and Patrick Morrissey
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total abortion ban (W. Va. Code § 61–2–8)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the state constitution’s guarantee of due process — the law is insufficiently clear (Art III, § 10). They also claim the state cannot enforce the ban because 1) it has since passed many laws regulating legal abortion that conflict with the ban and 2) it has fallen into disuse for over half a century. A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. The legislature passed a new ban while the state’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia (the state’s highest court) was pending. The case was subsequently dismissed.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 29, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (July 20, 2022)
Wisconsin
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Wisconsin
- Plaintiff(s): Josh Kaul; Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services; Wisconsin Medical Examining Board; and Sheldon A. Wasserman; M.D.
  
  Defendant(s): Chris Kapenga; Devin Lemahieu; and Robin Vos
  
  Law(s) challenged: Pre-Roe near-total ban (Wis. Stat. § 940.04)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim the state cannot enforce the ban because 1) it has since passed many laws regulating legal abortions that conflict with the ban and 2) it has fallen into disuse for over half a century. A trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the case and later issued a declaratory judgment that the law does not prohibit and is unenforceable against abortion. A district attorney has appealed to an intermediate court.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (June 28, 2022)
  
  Order denying motion to dismiss (July 7, 2023)
  
  Decision and order (December 5, 2023)
Wyoming
Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Wyoming
- Plaintiff(s): Danielle Johnson; Kathleen Dow; Giovannina Anthony, M.D.; Rene R. Hinkle, M.D.; Chelsea’s Fund; and Circle of Hope Healthcare d/b/a Wellspring Health Access
  
  Defendant(s): State of Wyoming; Mark Gordon; Bridget Hill; Matthew Carr; and Michelle Weber
  
  Law(s) challenged: 2022 near-total ban (H.B. 92)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the ban (triggered by the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe) violates the state constitution’s fundamental right to be left alone by government as guaranteed by rights to equality, due process, uniform operation of the laws, family composition, privacy and bodily integrity, conscience, and access to health care (Art. 1 §§ 2, 3, 6, 7, 18, 33, 34, 36, 38). A trial court preliminarily blocked the ban. The Wyoming Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the case’s central questions at this stage of the litigation.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Complaint (July 25, 2022)
  
  Order granting temporary restraining order (July 28, 2022)
  
  Order granting preliminary injunction (August 10, 2022)
  
  Notice of declination to answer certified questions (December 20, 2022)
- Plaintiff(s): Danielle Johnson; Kathleen Dow; Giovannina Anthony, M.D.; Rene R. Hinkle, M.D.; Chelsea’s Fund; and Circle of Hope Healthcare d/b/a Wellspring Health Access
  
  Defendant(s): State of Wyoming; Mark Gordon; Bridget Hill; Matthew Carr; Michelle Weber
  
  Law(s) challenged: 2023 near-total ban (H.B. 152) and medication abortion ban (S.F.N. 109)
  
  Description: Plaintiffs claim that the 2023 ban, and the medication abortion ban, violate the state constitution’s fundamental right to be left alone by the government as guaranteed by rights against government establishment of religion and rights to equality, due process, uniform operation of the laws, family composition, privacy and bodily integrity, and access to health care (Art. 1 §§ 2, 3, 6, 7, 18, 19, 33, 34, 36, 38; Art. 7 § 12; Art. 21 § 25). They also claim that the bans are unconstitutionally vague. A trial court temporarily blocked both bans.
  
  Key Documents
  
  Amended complaint (March 21, 2023)
  
  Order granting motion for TRO (April 17, 2023)

Stay up to date

Informed citizens are our democracy’s best defense.

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

States:

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Alabama

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Alaska

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Arizona

Planned Parenthood v. Brnovich, No. C127867 (Ariz. Super. Ct. July 22, 1971)

Isaacson v. Arizona, No. CV2022-13091 (Ariz. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2022)

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Arkansas

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

California

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Colorado

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Connecticut

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Delaware

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

District of Columbia

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Florida

Generation to Generation v. Florida, No. 2022 CA 980 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Aug. 9, 2022) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Planned Parenthood v. Florida, No. 2022 CA 912 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 1, 2022)

Hafner v. Florida *[Full Case Name Below]

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Georgia

Sistersong v. Georgia, No. 2022CV367796 (Ga. Super. Ct. Jul. 26, 2022)

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Hawaii

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Idaho

Adkins v. Idaho, CV01-23-14744 (Idaho Dist. Ct. Sept. 11, 2023)

Planned Parenthood v. Idaho, No. 49615-2022 (Idaho Sup. Ct. Mar. 30, 2022) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Planned Parenthood v. Idaho, No. 49817-2022 (Idaho Sup. Ct. June 27, 2022) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Planned Parenthood v. Idaho, No. 49899-2022 (Idaho Sup. Ct. July 25, 2022) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Illinois

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Indiana

Planned Parenthood v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, No. 53C06-2208-PL-1756 (Ind. Cir. Ct. Aug. 31, 2022)

Anonymous Plaintiffs v. Members of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana, No. 49D01-2209-PL-31056 (Ind. Cir. Ct. Aug. 31, 2022)

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Iowa

Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, No. EQCE 89066 (Iowa Dist. Ct. July 12, 2023)

Planned Parenthood v. Reynolds, No. EQCE 83074 (Iowa Dist. Ct. May 15, 2018) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Key:

No state court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Kansas

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Kentucky

Doe v. Cameron, No. 23-CI-007561, (Ky. Cir. Ct. Dec. 8, 2023) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Sobel v. Cameron, No. 22-CI-5189 (Ky. Cir. Ct. Oct. 6, 2022)

EMW Women’s Surgical Center v. Cameron, No. 22-CI-3225 (Ky. Cir. Ct. June 27, 2022) [CASE IS CONCLUDED]

Key:

State court challenges to abortion bans filed after Dobbs

Louisiana

June Medical Services v. Landry, No. C-720988 (La. Dist. Ct. June 24, 2022)