Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Mayes

• Docket Number: CV-23-0005-PR
• Decision Date: 09 April 2024
• Citation: 545 P.3d 892
• Parties: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ARIZONA, INC., Successor-In-Interest to Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc.; Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney, Appellants, v. Kristin K. MAYES, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Appellee, and Eric Hazelrigg, M.D., as guardian ad litem of unborn child of plaintiff Jane Roe and all other unborn infants similarly situated; Dennis McGrane, Yavapai County Attorney, Intervenors.
• Court: Arizona Supreme Court

545 P.3d 892

PLANNED PARENTHOOD ARIZONA, INC., Successor-In-Interest to Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc.; Laura Conover, Pima CountyAttorney, Appellants,

v.Kristin K. MAYES, Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Appellee,andEric Hazelrigg, M.D., as guardian ad litem of unborn child of plaintiffJane Roe and all other unborn infants similarly situated; Dennis McGrane, Yavapai CountyAttorney, Intervenors.

No. CV-23-0005-PR

Supreme Court of Arizona.

Filed April 9, 2024

West Codenotes

Negative Treatment Vacated

Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3603

Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County, The Honorable Kellie L. Johnson, Judge, No. C127867.AFFIRMED

Opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division Two, 254 Ariz. 401(App.2022).VACATED

D. Andrew Gaona(argued), Austin C. Yost, Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Phoenix; and Diana O. Salgado, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Planned Parenthood Arizona Inc.

Laura Conover, Pima County Attorney, Samuel E. Brown(argued), Jonathan Pinkney, Pima County Attorney’s Office, Tucson; and Aadika Singh, Joshua Rosenthal, Cristian Torres, Public Rights Project, Oakland, CA, Attorneys for Laura Conover

Kristin K. Mayes, Arizona Attorney General, Joshua D. Bendor(argued), Solicitor General, Alexander W. Samuels, Assistant Solicitor General, Luci D. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix, Attorneys for Kristin K. Mayes

Kevin H. Theriot, Jacob P. Warner(argued), Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale; John J, Bursch, Alliance Defending Freedom, Washington, DC; and Denise M. Harle, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, GA, Attorneys for Eric Hazelrigg and Dennis McGrane

Joshua W. Garden, Carden Livesay, Ltd, Mesa, Attorney for Amicus Curiae American College of Pediatricians

Kevin L. Beckwith, Law Offices of Kevin L, Beckwith P.C., Phoenix; Olivia F. Summers, American Center for Law and Justice, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Amici CuriaeCharlotte Lozier Institute et al.

Roberta S. Livesay, Carden Livesay, Ltd, Mesa, Attorney for Amicus Curiae American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Parker C. Fox, Phoenix and Tim Griffin, Arkansas Attorney General, Nicholas J. Bronni, Arkansas Solicitor General, Dylan L, Jacobs, Deputy Solicitor General, Hannah L. Templin, Assistant Solicitor General, Little Rock, AR, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae State of Arkansas and 16 Other States

Kory Langhofer, Thomas Basile, Statecraft PLLC, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives Ben Toma and President of the Arizona Senate Warren Petersen

Andrew S. Lishko, May, Potenza, Baran & Gillespie, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus CuriaeJill Norgaard

Steven H. Aden, Americans United for Life, Washington, DC; and Samuel D. Green, Reason for Life, Palmdale, CA, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Center for Arizona Policy

Timothy D. Ducar, Law Offices of Timothy D. Ducar, PLC, Scottsdale; and Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel, Orlando, FL, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Arizona Life Coalition, Frederick Douglass Foundation, and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference

Doug Newborn, Doug Newborn Law Firm, PLLC, Tucson, Attorney for Amicus Curiae Christian Medical and Dental Associations

Abigail J. Mills, Schmitt Schneck Even & Williams, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The Prolife Center at the University of St. Thomas (MN)

David J. Euchner, Lauren K. Beall, Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice, Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice

Susan C. Salmon, Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, The University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, Tucson, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae the Family & Juvenile Law Association, University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law

Alexis E, Danneman, Jean-Jacques Cabou, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae National Council of Jewish Women of Arizona

Adriane Hofmeyr, Hofmeyr Law PLLC, Tucson; and Orlando Economos, Benjamin Seel, Democracy Forward Foundation, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Amici Curiae Law Professors

Sambo (Bo) Dul, Neta Borshansky, Noah T. Gabrielsen, Office of Governor Katie Hobbs, Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus CuriaeGovernorKatie Hobbs

Bruce Samuels, Lauren A. Crawford, Hannah Dolski, Anita Ramalho Rocha, Papetti Samuels Weiss McKirgan LLP, Scottsdale, Attorneys for Amici Curiae League of Women Voters of Arizona and Arizona Business Owners

Timothy J. Berg, Emily Ward, Fennemore Craig, P.C., Phoenix, Attorneys for Amicus CuriaeJoel John

Christopher D. Thomas, Karen Schemer Aldama, Kristine J. Beaudoin, Perkins Coie LLP, Phoenix; and Nicole Saharsky, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, Attorneys for Amici Curiae American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Arizona Medical Association and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine

J. Stanley Martineau, Martineau Law, PLLC, Mesa, Attorneys for Amici CuriaeMario Villegas and Estate of Baby Villegas

JUSTICE LOPEZauthored the Opinion of the Court, in which JUSTICES BOLICK, BEENE, and KING joined.VICE CHIEF JUSTICE TIMMER authored a dissenting opinion in which CHIEF JUSTICE BRUTINEL joined.¹

JUSTICE LOPEZ, Opinion of the Court:

¶1We consider whether the Arizona Legislature repealed or otherwise restricted A.R.S. § 13-3603 by enacting the abortion statutes in Title 36,² namely A.R.S. § 36-2322, the statute proscribing physicians from performing elective abortions after fifteen weeks’ gestation.This case involves statutory interpretation—it does not rest on the justices’ morals or public policy views regarding abortion; nor does it rest on § 13-3603’s constitutionality, which is not before us.

¶2We conclude that § 36-2322 does not create a right to, or otherwise provide independent statutory authority for, an abortion that repeals or restricts § 13-3603, but rather is predicated entirely on the existence of a federal constitutional right to an abortion since disclaimed by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,597 U.S. 215, 292, 142 S.Ct. 2228, 213 L.Ed.2d 545(2022).Absent the federal constitutional abortion right, and because § 36-2322 does not independently authorize abortion, there is no provision in federal or state law prohibiting § 13-3603’s operation.Accordingly, § 13-3603 is now enforceable.

¶3 When this litigation was initiated in 1971, the plaintiffs asserted a number of state and federal constitutional challenges to § 13-3603, in addition to those presented in Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147(1973), which was overruled by Dobbs.We remand the case to the trial court for consideration of those additional constitutional challenges if the plaintiffs wish to pursue them, and we temporarily extend the existing stay against enforcement of § 13-3603 so that the trial court may determine how to proceed.

BACKGROUND

¶4 In 1864, the First Legislative Assembly published a code of laws governing the territory of Arizona.See Howell Code (1864).The Howell Code established Arizona’s first criminal code, which included constraints on abortion.In 1901, the Twenty-First Legislative Assembly enacted a penal code reiterating the abortion law, dividing criminality between people who facilitate abortions and women who solicit assistance to procure an abortion.SeeRevised Statutes of Arizona,Penal Code §§ 234,244 (1901).This language was adopted in whole in 1913, after Arizona statehood.SeeRevised Statutes of Arizona,Penal Code § 273(1913).In 1928, the Arizona Legislature codified abortion criminality in A.R.S. §§ 13-211 to -213.

¶5 In 1971, Planned Parenthood Center of Tucson, Inc. sued the Attorney General challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s abortion statutes under both the state and federal constitutions.SeePlanned Parenthood Ctr. of Tucson, Ina v. Marks, 17 Ariz. App. 308, 311–13, 497 P.2d 534(1972)(reversingthe trial court’s order of dismissal and remanding to proceed to a resolution of the ease on its merits).On remand from Marks, the trial court ruled Arizona’s abortion statutes unconstitutional.SeeNelson v Planned Parenthood Ctr. of Tucson, Inc., 19 Ariz. App. 142, 143, 505 P.2d 580(1973).On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling, upholding the constitutionality of the abortion statutes.Id. at 150, 505 P.2d 580.In 1973, after Nelsonupheld§ 13-211’s constitutionality, the United States Supreme Court recognized a federal constitutional right to an abortion in Roe.This new right established by Roe was inconsistent with § 13-211, so the Arizona Court of Appeals revisited the issue in Marks, this time holding the statute unconstitutional because of Roe and enjoining enforcement of § 13-211.Nelson, 19 Ariz. App. at 152, 505 P.2d 580.

¶6 Despite Nelson, the Arizona Legislature did not repeal § 13-211.To the contrary, four years after Roe and Nelson, the legislature recodified § 13-211 as § 13-3603, maintaining the operative language of the statute.³1977 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 142, § 99(1st Reg. Sess.).

¶7 The abortion law’s recodification was not the only legislative change made to the abortion statutory scheme.Between 1973 and 2022, and conforming to the federal abortion right established in Roe, the Arizona Legislature codified dozens of abortion statutes in Title 36.See, e.g.,1973 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 155, § 1(1st Reg. Sess.);2022 Ariz. Sess. Laws ch. 105, § 1(2d Reg. Sess.).To the extent permitted by Roe and its progeny, all of these statutes restricted abortions, including adding many procedural requirements for physicians performing abortions.

¶8 In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe, thereby eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion and returning "the authority to regulate abortion … to the people and their elected representatives."Dobbs,597 U.S. at 292, 142 S.Ct. 2228.

¶9 After Dobbs, then-Attorney GeneralMark Brnovich moved for relief under Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)-(6),...