February Court Report: Alabama's IVF Decision Prompts Immediate Legislative Response

State high courts issue thousands of opinions each year, and these court decisions have just as much of an impact on public policy as the legislative process. To help you keep track of consequential judicial decisions and their impact on state policy, MultiState publishes the Monthly Court Report, which offers a monthly recap of notable state high court decisions to provide a more dynamic picture of public policy trends.

February Court Report: Alabama Court’s IVF Personhood Decision Prompts Immediate Legislative Response

The direct impact of judicial action on state policy was unmistakably apparent this month when the Alabama Supreme Court released its decision in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine. In this case, a hospital patient managed to gain entry into the hospital’s fertility clinic through an unsecured door and remove several embryos from the cryogenic freezer. The sub-zero temperature of the embryo containers burned the patient’s hand and caused them to drop the embryos onto the floor. The individuals to which those embryos belonged then brought suit against the clinic under Alabama’s Wrongful Death of Minor Act.  While the Alabama Supreme Court has already established that an unborn child qualifies as a “minor child” under the Act in its 2011 decision in Mack v. Carmack, the defendant clinic argued that an exception exists for extrauterine embryos. The Court, however, found that no such legal distinction exists, leading it to determine that a frozen embryo is a “child” under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. 

The consequences of this decision were immediately felt throughout the state. Many fertility clinics paused their IVF care out of concern for liability. Additionally, demonstrating the direct impact that the state judicial system has in shaping public policy, five bills were almost immediately filed in the state legislature addressing the court’s decision. Three bills (HB 237, SB 159, and SB 160) sought to provide civil and criminal immunity to providers of in vitro fertilization care. Two other bills aimed to exclude an extrauterine embryo from the definition of child (HB 225 and HB 240). Senate Bill 159 was fast-tracked and approved by both houses and signed into law by the governor, although some ambiguous language in the statute still leaves IVF clinics in a precarious position. Legislators in at least four other states, including Kentucky, Missouri, New York, and South Carolina, have already proposed similar legislation.

The Alabama Supreme Court’s opinion will affect policy far beyond its borders. Issues surrounding reproductive health care are well-established political battlegrounds, even more so after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. In the time since that 2022 decision, states have sought to fill the sudden legal void with their own frameworks for reproductive health care. States are constantly looking to each other as both best practice models and cautionary tales and will surely be watching how Alabama manages the implications of its supreme court’s decision. 

Other Key February Decisions 

California

California’s Supreme Court settled a long-standing disagreement among its courts regarding the validity of a trust amendment when the certification does not follow the trust’s procedure, but instead follows the statutory amendment process. The court found that such an amendment is valid, so long as the trust’s procedure was not specified to be exclusive. Read more.

Colorado

The Colorado Supreme Court held that a tenant’s claim that her landlord’s forcible entry and detainer action to evict her was in retaliation for refusing his sexual advances was a legitimate affirmative defense against the eviction. This reversed the lower court holding permitting a landlord to quit a tenancy for “no reasons or any reason.”

Connecticut

Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that a voluntary retiree was not entitled to a retroactive wage increase even though the retroactive period included a portion of the time that he was still an active firefighter. The Court asserted that while the language of the contract was ambiguous, the interpretation that such an increase should only apply to mandatory retirees was the most reasonable. Read more.

Delaware

The Delaware Supreme Court held that the state’s statutes expanding early voting and establishing permanent absentee voting were unconstitutional. The Court found that a strict interpretation of the state’s constitution permits elections to occur on only one day and allows absentee voting only when a voter is unable to appear. Read more.

Hawaii

Hawaii’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s constitution does not include an individual right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court asserted that, although the state constitution includes a provision for a right to bear arms, it is “militia-centric” and does not apply to a right to defend oneself in public. Read more.

Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court found that a lower court erred when it did not issue a directed verdict in favor of the defendant in an employment sex discrimination suit. The Court determined that the employer defendant had provided enough evidence to demonstrate that the pay disparity between the plaintiff and her male counterpart was based on a legitimate claim of seniority. Read more. 

In another decision this month, Iowa’s high court reversed a lower court’s ruling requiring that state legislators turn over certain documents from meetings and communications with non-legislators related to voting changes. The Court asserted that the documents in question were protected by legislative privilege and did not need to be turned over in the ongoing legal battle over the state’s broad-reaching election bill. Read more.

Missouri

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the legislature’s attempt to prohibit payment of Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood was unconstitutional as it denied “access to funds that are otherwise available to other MO HealthNet providers.” This is the second time in four years that the court has responded to such legislative actions. Read more.

In another impactful decision this month, Missouri’s Supreme Court upheld a trial court opinion that a state Senate district map drawn by a judicial commission was constitutional. The court stated that intervention by the court would only be permissible if the map “clearly and undoubtedly” violated the state constitution. Read more.

Nevada

The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed a defamation case filed by Steve Wynn, a casino developer, against The Associated Press regarding an article published in 2018 where Wynn was accused of sexual misconduct. The court asserted that the claim was directly in line with the type of suits that the state’s anti-SLAPP statutes were designed to protect against. Read more.

New York

New York’s high court followed the lead of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s casino decision detailed in last month’s Court Report, finding that a restaurant franchisor was not entitled to coverage from his insurer for COVID-19 business interruption. Like New Jersey, New York’s court ruled that the physical loss trigger of the policy required actual physical loss or damage. Read more.

Oregon

In a unanimous opinion, the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that Measure 113 disqualified ten senators from running for re-election as a result of their walkout last session. Measure 113 was passed by voters in 2022 and amended the state constitution to bar lawmakers from reelection if they have more than 10 unexcused absences. Read more.

South Dakota

South Dakota’s Supreme Court overturned historical precedent and found that legislators are permitted to enter into most contracts with the state. The court determined that while the state constitution did prohibit legislators from entering into contracts “authorized by laws passed during the legislator’s term,” general appropriations legislation does not fall within this category. Read more.

Washington

The Washington Supreme Court ruled that Liberty Mutual’s use of computer-generated data from an industry-wide database to set ceilings for payments to medical providers was permissible and did not violate consumer protection laws. The personal injury protection statutes require that an insurer pay “all reasonable and necessary” medical expenses, and the court found that Liberty Mutual’s methodology was a viable strategy to determine the cost of those expenses. Read more.