## Facts

- Indiana enacted a statute requiring physicians, hospitals, and abortion clinics to report any adverse physical or psychological condition “arising from” an abortion, with criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- The statute specified 26 reportable conditions; the original “including” language suggested the list was nonexclusive.
- Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc. (PPINK) alleged the reporting statute was facially void for vagueness because key terms and causation (“arising from”) did not give fair notice and risked arbitrary enforcement, particularly given criminal sanctions.
- Indiana also required annual inspections of abortion facilities, more frequently than many other medical facilities.
- After a preliminary injunction, Indiana amended the reporting statute to make the 26-condition list exclusive.
- PPINK maintained that the amended reporting statute remained vague and continued to challenge both statutes in a pre-enforcement posture.

## Issues

1. Whether the abortion-complications reporting statute was unconstitutionally vague on its face under the Due Process Clause in a pre-enforcement challenge.
2. Whether the annual inspection requirement for abortion facilities was unconstitutionally vague on its face.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit reversed summary judgment for PPINK, vacated the permanent injunction, and remanded.
- The court held PPINK did not carry the burden of showing the reporting statute was facially vague because it had a discernible core of clearly covered conduct.
- The court rejected the facial vagueness challenge to the inspection statute, concluding its language was sufficiently definite to provide notice and constrain enforcement.
- A dissent would have affirmed the vagueness ruling, emphasizing lack of clear standards combined with criminal liability and absent administrative guidance.

## Legal Principles

- A facial void-for-vagueness challenge is difficult to sustain, particularly in a pre-enforcement setting.
- A statute is not facially void for vagueness if it has a discernible core of applications that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand and that does not invite arbitrary enforcement.
- In assessing vagueness, courts may account for the likelihood that state courts or state agencies will provide clarifying constructions or guidance, and federal courts should proceed cautiously when such interpretation has not yet occurred.
- Uncertainty at the margins may support as-applied challenges but does not necessarily justify facial invalidation.
- A statutory amendment that confines regulated conduct to an exclusive enumerated list can narrow potential vagueness concerns.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit concluded that Indiana’s abortion-complications reporting law and annual inspection requirement could not be invalidated on a facial, pre-enforcement vagueness theory because the reporting requirement had a clear core tied to enumerated conditions as understood by a reasonable physician, and the inspection mandate was straightforward, requiring further proceedings on remand.


Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Marion Cnty. Prosecutor, 7 F.4th 594 (7th Cir. 2021)