LINCOLN — The Nebraska Supreme Court on Friday protected the Legislature’s prerogative to decide which bills are related, allowing the last-minute combination of a stricter abortion ban and restrictions on the treatment options of trans minors.
Planned Parenthood, represented by ACLU of Nebraska, had argued that Legislative Bill 574 had merged two unrelated ideas that did not succeed on their own and that the merger was unconstitutionally combined to secure votes.
The court disagreed with the group’s assertion that lawmakers overstepped the constitutional limit requiring bills to address a single subject. The decision could protect the practice of combining multiple bills as long as they address a related topic.
The court wrote that because the bill’s title was aimed at “public health and welfare,” that sufficiently covered the bill’s contents. It said they were logically connected and let the Legislature decide.
“After our review of the facts of this case and our historical legal precedent wherein we have rarely found violations … we find no merit to Planned Parenthood’s argument that LB 574 contains more than one subject,” the court ruled.
The decision likely protects a common practice as time runs low during legislative sessions, passing massive “Christmas tree” bills that contain multiple bills.
Hilgers, Pillen laud decision
Attorney General Mike Hilgers and Gov. Jim Pillen cheered Friday’s ruling.
Pillen, in a statement, said he was “grateful for the court’s thorough and well-reasoned opinion upholding these important protections for life and children in Nebraska.”
Hilgers, a former state senator, said he was pleased with the ruling’s deference to the Legislature.
“The Legislature passed Nebraska’s 12-week abortion ban and its ban on gender-altering procedures for minors, and we are pleased that the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Legislature’s work,” Hilgers said.
Solicitors with the Attorney General’s Office had argued that the Legislature was well within its rights to combine the bills because state senators had merged them under a title stating that both proposals regulated health care.
Plaintiffs disappointed, say fight isn’t over
ACLU Nebraska issued a statement on behalf of Planned Parenthood saying the group was disappointed in the ruling and believes the Court should have found the two bills unrelated.
Mindy Rush Chipman, ACLU Nebraska’s executive director, said the group respectfully disagrees with the majority and “hoped for a very different outcome.”
“It is so important that Nebraskans do not lose sight of the impact of these restrictions,” she said. “Nebraskans have been harmed every week since the governor signed LB 574 into law. That will continue under today’s ruling. However, this case will not be the final word on abortion access and the rights of trans youth and their families.”
Ruth Richardson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood North Central States, called the ruling a “heart-wrenching and infuriating” infringement of “private medical decisions.”
“We understand that Nebraskans may feel anxious about their ability to access an abortion — now and in the future. We will proudly continue providing abortion care … and we remain dedicated to helping our patients in Nebraska access the care they so desperately need, even if it means having to travel out of state,” Richardson said.
Court sided with district judge
During oral arguments in March, a state’s attorney argued that the court should side with Lancaster District Court Judge Lori Maret, who wrote that she would not speculate on whether one bill could have passed without the other.
That was because the abortion ban lawmakers adopted was different from the one in LB 626, which fell one vote short of beating a filibuster. That measure would have banned abortions after an ultrasound detects embryonic cardiac activity, at about six weeks.
Abortion rights advocates have said that women have had to visit other states for care since LB 574 went into effect. Trans advocates have said the changes in LB 574 have some people rethinking whether they should stay in Nebraska.
In March, Justice Lindsey Miller-Lerman had questioned whether the court should apply a stricter single-subject standard to ballot initiatives than to acts of the Legislature. The majority said the court should be stricter with ballot initiatives.
The court in 2020 tossed out an effort to legalize medical marijuana, based on the single-subject rule. The ruling concluded that combining the use and production of the crop violated the rule.
Partial dissent from one justice
On Friday, Miller-Lerman issued a partial dissent. She wrote that a stricter abortion ban and limits on gender-affirming care are not the same subject and disagreed with the majority’s broader interpretation of the single-subject rule.
She wrote that the court inappropriately “went searching for LB 574’s main purpose and failing a clear articulation by the Legislature, invented its own ‘main purpose,’ i.e., ‘to regulate medical care.’” She said that was the Legislature’s role.
“Failure to so compose renders the bill unconstitutional,” she wrote. “It is not the role of this court to rescue legislative bills.”
The majority addressed her dissent directly:
“Unlike our dissenting colleague, and particularly in the absence of a suggestion that the title given by the Legislature was misleading, we decline to reject the elected representatives’ articulation of a subject in the guise of a search for the perfect title. Additionally, we find Planned Parenthood’s assignments of error to be without merit.”