## Facts

- After the U.S. Supreme Court overruled federal constitutional abortion protections, Idaho’s abortion restrictions were set to take effect or had taken effect.
- A Planned Parenthood affiliate and an Idaho physician filed three original actions in the Idaho Supreme Court on behalf of themselves and patients.
- The petitioners sought extraordinary writs of prohibition and declaratory judgments to block enforcement of: (1) Idaho’s criminal prohibition on most abortions, (2) a law prohibiting abortions after detection of fetal cardiac activity (commonly around six weeks), and (3) a statute creating private civil liability for abortions performed in violation of the fetal-cardiac-activity ban.
- Petitioners asserted that the challenged laws violated the Idaho Constitution (including due process, equal protection, special laws, separation of powers, and an asserted informational-privacy right) and conflicted with the Idaho Human Rights Act.
- The Idaho Supreme Court consolidated the actions and resolved them in a single opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether the Idaho Constitution implicitly protects abortion as a fundamental right limiting the legislature’s power to regulate abortion.
2. If abortion is not a fundamental right, what level of scrutiny governs facial challenges to Idaho abortion regulations.
3. Whether the challenged abortion statutes are facially invalid under Idaho constitutional provisions governing due process, equal protection, special laws, separation of powers, or informational privacy.
4. Whether the Idaho Human Rights Act restricts the legislature’s authority to enact and enforce the challenged abortion statutes.
5. Whether petitioners met the requirements for extraordinary writs of prohibition and declaratory relief barring enforcement.

## Decision

- The court denied all petitions for writs of prohibition and requests for declaratory relief.
- The court held the Idaho Constitution does not recognize an implicit fundamental right to abortion.
- The court applied rational basis review to the challenged abortion statutes.
- Under rational basis review, the court upheld the criminal abortion ban, the fetal-cardiac-activity ban, and the private civil-liability provision against facial constitutional challenges.
- The court rejected claims based on due process, equal protection, special laws, separation of powers, and informational privacy, and found no controlling conflict with the Idaho Human Rights Act.

## Legal Principles

- An unenumerated right is treated as fundamental only if it is deeply rooted in Idaho’s history and traditions and essential to Idaho’s concept of ordered liberty.
- Where no fundamental right is implicated, facial challenges to abortion regulation are reviewed under a highly deferential rational basis standard.
- The legislature may regulate medical procedures, including abortion, pursuant to its police power if the regulation is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, including protecting prenatal life and protecting maternal health and safety.
- Equal protection is not violated by abortion regulations that do not create an unconstitutional classification and that satisfy rational basis review.
- A law is not an unconstitutional “special law” merely because it targets a defined subject matter; uniform application to that subject supports validity.
- Courts will not recognize a free-standing state constitutional right to informational privacy that lacks textual and historical support sufficient to invalidate abortion statutes.
- Extraordinary writs of prohibition and broad pre-enforcement declaratory relief require a clear showing of illegality; absent a clear constitutional violation, courts will not enjoin enforcement through extraordinary remedies.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court held that the Idaho Constitution does not protect abortion as a fundamental right, applied rational basis review to Idaho’s abortion restrictions, rejected multiple facial constitutional and statutory challenges, and denied extraordinary writs and declaratory relief, leaving the challenged abortion laws in effect subject to their statutory exceptions and defenses.


Planned Parenthood Great Nw., Haw., Alaska, Ind. & Ky. v. Idaho, 522 P.3d 1132 (Idaho 2023)