## Facts

- Rhode Island enacted the Reproductive Privacy Act (RPA) in 2019, codifying a state-law right to abortion and repealing dormant criminal abortion statutes previously declared unconstitutional and unenforceable in federal court.
- Rhode Island residents opposed to the RPA sued state officials in their official capacities seeking declaratory and injunctive relief invalidating the RPA.
- The adult plaintiffs alleged the General Assembly could not enact the RPA without a popular vote and that enactment through ordinary legislation infringed their asserted voting-related constitutional rights.
- Two pregnant plaintiffs, acting as “next friends,” sued on behalf of their unborn children, asserting the fetuses were “persons” under the repealed criminal abortion statutes and that the RPA deprived them of legal protections.
- A pro-life organization claimed standing based on interference with its mission and, representationally, on behalf of unborn children.
- The Superior Court dismissed the complaint for lack of standing; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the adult plaintiffs alleged a concrete, particularized injury sufficient to confer standing to challenge the RPA based on asserted voting-process or structural constitutional claims.
2. Whether unborn children, through next friends, had standing based on an alleged loss of statutory protections arising from repealed criminal abortion statutes.
3. Whether an advocacy organization had organizational or associational standing to challenge the RPA.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed dismissal for lack of standing.
- The adult plaintiffs alleged only a generalized grievance about legislative action and policy; disagreement with enactment of a statute did not constitute a distinct and palpable injury.
- The unborn children failed to show injury-in-fact attributable to the RPA because the repealed criminal provisions had already been declared unconstitutional and unenforceable and did not confer enforceable individual rights for standing purposes.
- The organization failed to show a legally cognizable organizational injury beyond frustration of its advocacy goals and could not establish associational standing because the represented parties lacked standing.
- Because no plaintiff had standing, the court did not reach the constitutional merits of the RPA.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a threshold, prudential requirement in Rhode Island and generally requires injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability.
- A plaintiff must show a distinct and palpable, particularized injury; abstract disagreement with legislation or the legislative process is a generalized grievance insufficient for standing.
- Repeal of statutes already declared unconstitutional and unenforceable does not, without more, cause a cognizable injury to persons claiming protection under those statutes.
- Penal statutes defining crimes and punishments do not necessarily create enforceable individual rights supporting standing.
- An organization does not establish standing merely because a challenged law conflicts with its mission or makes advocacy more difficult; associational standing requires that those represented would themselves have standing.
- Courts will not decide the constitutionality of a statute absent standing, to avoid issuing advisory opinions in private litigation.

## Conclusion

The court held that neither individual voters, unborn children suing through next friends, nor an advocacy organization alleged a concrete and particularized injury traceable to the RPA; the complaint was properly dismissed and the statute’s constitutionality was not adjudicated.


Benson v. McKee, 273 A.3d 121 (R.I. 2022)