Okla. Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: Okla. Coalition for Reproductive Justice v. Cline, 292 P.3d 27 (Okla. 2012)
• Decision Date: 04 December 2012
• Docket Number: No. 110,765.,110,765.
• Parties: OKLAHOMA COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members and Nova Health Systems, d/b/a Reproductive Services, on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Terry CLINE, in his official capacity as Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, Lyle Kelsey, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, Catherine V. Taylor, in her official capacity as the President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Defendants/Appellants.

292 P.3d 27

OKLAHOMA COALITION FOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE, on behalf of itself and its members and Nova Health Systems, d/b/a Reproductive Services, on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients, Plaintiffs/Appellees,

v.Terry CLINE, in his official capacity as Oklahoma Commissioner of Health, Lyle Kelsey, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Oklahoma State Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision, Catherine V. Taylor, in her official capacity as the President of the Oklahoma State Board of Osteopathic Examiners, Defendants/Appellants.

No. 110,765.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Dec. 4, 2012.

Recognized as Unconstitutional

63 Okl.St.Ann. § 1–729a

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 This is an appeal of the trial court's summary judgment which held House Bill 1970, 2011 Okla. Sess. Laws 1276, unconstitutional. Upon review of the record and the briefs of the parties, this Court determines this matter is controlled by the United States Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992), which was applied in this Court's recent decision of In re Initiative No. 395, State Question No. 761, 2012 OK 42, 286 P.3d 637,cert. den. sub nom. Personhood Okla. v. Barber et al., ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 528, 184 L.Ed.2d 340 (2012).

¶ 2 Because the United States Supreme Court has previously determined the dispositive issue presented in this matter, this Court is not free to impose its own view of the law. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution provides:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

U.S. Const. Art. VI, cl. 2. The Oklahoma Constitution reaffirms the effect of the Supremacy Clause on Oklahoma law by providing: “The State of Oklahoma is an inseparable part of the Federal Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.” Okla. Const. art. 1, § 1. Thus, this Court is duty bound by the United States and the Oklahoma Constitutions to “follow the mandate of the United States Supreme Court on matters of federal constitutional law” In re Initiative Petition No. 349, State Question No. 642, 1992 OK 122, ¶ 1, 838 P.2d 1, 2;In re Petition No. 395, 2012 OK 42, ¶ 2, 286 P.3d 637.

...