INDIANAPOLIS -- The Indiana Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that it is not time for them to hear a case surrounding a religious exemption to Indiana's near-total abortion ban.
In a 3-2 decision, the court denied a petition to transfer a case from the Indiana Court of Appeals, according to documents filed on Tuesday in the state's highest court. Most of the judges stated they wanted a final decision from the trial court in this case before they became involved.
The documents said Indiana Supreme Court Justices Christopher Goff, Derek Molter and Chief Justice Loretta Rush concurred with the court's opinion. Justices Mark Massa and Geoffrey Slaughter dissented.
This decision would uphold a preliminary injunction the appeals court affirmed in April. According to previous reports, an injunction was in place for a group of anonymous Indiana women who sued the state of Indiana, stating their religious beliefs could direct them to seek an abortion outside of what the state's law allows.
According to previous reports, Senate Enrolled Act One was first passed in Indiana in August 2022 and was officially implemented throughout the state in August 2023. This law prohibits all abortions in the state except for three exceptions.
- When the pregnant person receives a diagnosis of a lethal fetal anomaly
- When the pregnant person is a victim of rape or incest.
- When reasonable medical judgment dictates that performing the abortion is necessary to prevent death or a serious risk of substantial of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, or the “health or life exception.”
The injunction in April was in place just for the specific group of women included in the lawsuit, not for the class defined in the lawsuit as all people in Indiana whose religious beliefs direct them to obtain abortions in situations prohibited by the bill.
"The Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court didn't exceed its discretion by entering a preliminary injunction while the case continues to be litigated," Molter said in a concurring opinion filed on Tuesday. "But the panel also directed the trial court to narrow the preliminary injunction on remand. So thus far, this case is not stopping the defendants from doing anything. And we don't yet know if it ever will, including because the defendants may ultimately prevail in the lawsuit."
Molter said he expects the Indiana Supreme Court may "eventually need to decide important questions." In this case, he believes it is more prudent for the court to review the case after a final judgment rather than in response to a preliminary injunction. This allows a trial court to decide what final relief, if any, is granted to the parties before the Supreme Court weighs in.
Molter said he sees the injunction as a "work in progress and subject to more deferential appellate review," stressing that the case is still evolving.
"In essence, it is better that we review the trial court's final answer rather than its first guess," he said. "The record reflects that none of them are pregnant, so they don't yet confront the circumstances they fear. And they may never confront those circumstances even if they do become pregnant because a pregnancy could occur in circumstances in which their faith does not require an abortion.
"While the Court of Appeals has remanded for a narrower preliminary injunction, the case doesn't have to keep volleying between the trial and appellate courts on the way to a final judgment," Molter continued.
In a dissenting opinion, Slaughter said that he believes the court should not wait to decide key issues the appeal presents, including:
- Whether the individual plaintiffs' claimed injuries have "sufficiently matured" into a "justiciable controversy since the women are not now pregnant and may never seek an abortion."
- Whether associational standing should be adopted so the Hoosier Jews for Choice organization can sue in its own name on behalf of members who claim injury
- Whether the trial court correctly interpreted and applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, an act "which requires that a law burdening religious exercise must advance a compelling governmental interest through the least restrictive means available."
"Answering these questions now may leave the trial court with greater clarity and fewer things to decide on remand," Slaughter said in the dissenting opinion.
Officials with the ACLU said that the case will now go back to the trial court. The full order from the Indiana Supreme Court can be read below: