## Facts

- Oklahoma enacted SB 642 (2015), an omnibus abortion-related measure codified in Title 63, effective November 1, 2015.
- The bill (1) amended parental-consent procedures for minors seeking abortions, (2) created a forensic protocol for statutory-rape investigations, (3) imposed new licensing and inspection requirements for abortion facilities (including warrantless searches), and (4) expanded penalties and criminal liability for abortion-regulation violations.
- Before the law took effect, Dr. Larry A. Burns, an abortion provider, sought to block enforcement and to obtain a declaration that SB 642 was unconstitutional.
- The Oklahoma Supreme Court initially assumed original jurisdiction and stayed enforcement; the stay remained after Burns filed a district-court declaratory and injunctive action.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the State defendants, upheld SB 642’s constitutionality, and denied declaratory and permanent injunctive relief.
- Burns appealed, and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether SB 642 violates the Oklahoma Constitution’s single-subject rule, Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57, by combining multiple unrelated subjects in one act.
2. What level of deference applies given the presumption of constitutionality, and whether the court must nevertheless enforce the single-subject limitation.

## Decision

- The Oklahoma Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment.
- The court held SB 642 unconstitutional because it violated the single-subject rule in Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57.
- The case was remanded with directions consistent with invalidating the statute, rendering it unenforceable.

## Legal Principles

- Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57 requires that every legislative act embrace only one subject, clearly expressed in its title.
- Statutes are presumed constitutional, and challengers bear a heavy burden; however, the court must review legislation for compliance with express constitutional limits, including structural requirements such as the single-subject rule.
- A bill violates the single-subject rule when its provisions are not “germane, relative and cognate” to one clearly defined subject, but instead combine separate and dissimilar subjects into a single enactment.
- The single-subject rule protects against logrolling and all-or-nothing voting by requiring that distinct policy choices not be bundled in one bill.

## Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court invalidated SB 642 because its distinct regulatory schemes were not sufficiently related to constitute a single subject under Okla. Const. art. 5, § 57, and it reversed the district court’s order upholding the statute and denying injunctive relief.


Burns v. Cline, 382 P.3d 1048 (Okla. 2016)