Justices Issue Split Ruling in Indiana Abortion Case, Blocking Part of State Law
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Indiana's law imposing new requirements on the disposal of aborted or miscarried fetal remains, but the justices left in place the invalidation of restrictions on the ability of women to terminate previability abortions.
May 28, 2019 at 10:14 AM
5 minute read
Pro-choice protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., in the wake of recent legislation passed in Alabama banning abortions on May 21, 2019. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi/NLJ
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Indiana's law imposing new requirements on the disposal of aborted or miscarried fetal remains, but the justices left in place the invalidation of restrictions on the ability of women to terminate previability abortions.
Under the two provisions before the justices, abortion clinics and other facilities were required to dispose of aborted or miscarried fetuses through cremation or interment. The law also would prevent women from choosing “discriminatory” abortions based on the sex, race or disability of the fetus. The only exception is for a “fetal condition that … will with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three months after the child's birth.”
In its opinion, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had ruled that the state's interest in the “humane and dignified” disposal of human remains was “not legitimate” and even if it were legitimate, there was no rational relationship between that interest and the law as written.
The Supreme Court has acknowledged a state's interest in proper disposal of fetal remains, the justices said. “The only remaining question is whether Indiana's law is rationally related to the state's interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly tailored to that end,” the court said in its per curiam order.
The justices said that in challenging the Indiana fetal remains provision, the plaintiffs never argued the law imposed an undue burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. Other courts have analyzed similar provisions under that standard, but the high court said, “Our opinion expresses no view on the merits of those challenges.”
On the second issue before the high court—the “discriminatory” abortions restriction—the justices denied review, also without expressing a view on the merits. The court said: “Only the Seventh Circuit has thus far addressed this kind of law. We follow our ordinary practice of denying petitions insofar as they raise legal issues that have not been considered by additional Courts of Appeals.”

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a 20-page concurring opinion, addressed what he described as a law that would check “discriminatory preferences.” He wrote, “this law and others like it promote a state's compelling interest in preventing abortion from becoming a tool of modern-day eugenics.” He said the case “highlights the fact that abortion is an act rife with the potential for eugenic manipulation.” He warned that the court “cannot avoid” these issues forever.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg concurred and dissented in part. She agreed with the court's denial of review of the “discriminatory” abortion restriction, but wrote that she would not have summarily reversed the Seventh Circuit on the fetal remains provision of the law.
“This case implicates 'the right of a woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State,” wrote Ginsburg, quoting from the 1992 decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. It is a waste of the court's resources, she said, to take up a case “simply to say we are bound by a party's 'strategic litigation choice' to invoke rational-basis review alone, but 'everything might be different' under the close review instructed by the court's precedent. I would therefore deny Indiana's petition in its entirety.”
Federal trial and appellate judges had imposed injunctions stopping the measures from taking effect. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky sued to block the laws, signed in 2016 by then-Indiana governor, now Vice President Mike Pence.
The abortion debate has exploded once again across the country in the wake of two of the most restrictive abortion laws enacted in recent years. The Alabama and Missouri laws appeared designed to trigger a direct challenge to the Supreme Court's landmark 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, recognizing a woman's right to choose an abortion.
The high court's action Monday comes after the justices, dividing 5-4, recently blocked a Louisiana abortion law from temporarily taking effect.
The Louisiana law requires abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of abortion clinics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a dissent, arguing that the law should be allowed to go into effect to determine how much of a burden it created on women seeking abortions. Justices Thomas, Samuel Alito Jr. and Neil Gorsuch also dissented.
The Supreme Court's ruling in Box v. Planned Parenthood is posted below:
Read more:
The Justices Had 5 Votes to Overturn 'Roe' in 1992. Why That Didn't Happen.
Justice Thomas Accuses Colleagues of Sidestepping Abortion-Related Disputes
Roberts Aligns With Liberal Wing in Ruling Against Trump's Asylum Ban
Efforts to Unsettle 'Roe' Move Toward Supreme Court, as Kavanaugh Faces Senate
The Federalist Society Forecasts the Future at Annual Convention in DC
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Judge Accuses Trump of Constitutional End Run, Blocks Citizenship Order
3 minute read
'Erroneous Rulings'?: Wilmer Asks 4th Circuit to Overturn Mosby's Criminal Convictions
3 minute read

DC Circuit Revives Firefighters' Religious Freedom Litigation in Facial Hair Policy Row
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250