Sound journalism, grounded in facts and Biblical truth | Donate

Did the abortion debate jump from one high court to 51?

A call to action in the cause of life—and in the courts

Idaho state Supreme Court judges listen to Gov. Brad Little deliver the State of the State address on Jan. 9 in Boise, Idaho. Associated Press/Photo by Kyle Green

Did the abortion debate jump from one high court to 51?
You have {{ remainingArticles }} free {{ counterWords }} remaining. You've read all of your free articles.

Full access isn’t far.

We can’t release more of our sound journalism without a subscription, but we can make it easy for you to come aboard.

Get started for as low as $3.99 per month.

Current WORLD subscribers can log in to access content. Just go to "SIGN IN" at the top right.


Already a member? Sign in.

It has been six months since the Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Dobbs, reversing Roe v Wade. Justice Samuel Alito, in his majority opinion, promised the decision would “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” most importantly, to the elected officials of the states. In many states, that promise has gone unfulfilled and the issue has simply fractured from the federal Supreme Court to the high court of each state.

In ruby-red South Carolina, the state Supreme Court has just struck down a ban on abortions after six weeks, a “heartbeat” bill, by a 3-2 vote. The same week, in equally ruby-red Idaho, the state high court upheld a series of abortion restrictions by a 3-2 vote. Over the course of the next few years, we can expect dozens more rulings in red and purple states testing new abortion restrictions under each state constitution.

In short, in most of America, the issue of abortion will be finally decided not by voters or state legislators, but by a different set of black-robed rulers. In four states, the state constitution explicitly outlaws abortion and authorizes legislative enforcement of that principle. Perhaps in the wake of the win in Dobbs, several other red states will go this route. But in the rest of the country, any state statute limiting abortion access will be tested under generic rights provisions of state constitutions before state courts.

The right of state courts to interpret their state constitutions is as old as the nation itself—before we had our national constitution in 1787, all of the initial thirteen states had their own charters and laws subject to interpretation and application by their state courts. We live in a nation with 51 constitutions, as Judge Jeff Sutton reminds us.

The power of state courts came to the fore in the 1970s and ’80s, after a Harvard Law Review article by U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan. Leader of the Court’s liberal wing, Brennan was deeply frustrated as the glory days of the Warren Court were replaced by the conservative majority of the Burger Court. In his article, he called state supreme courts to begin actively relying on their own state constitutions for expansive rights claims. Brennan asked state high courts to ignore his own court’s rulings on cognate provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights and extend greater protection through sheer force of judicial will.

State judicial selection, which has often been a higher priority for business conservatives than for social conservatives, takes on profound new importance.

Numerous state court justices took up his call to arms, and began issuing sweeping rulings against the death penalty or in favor of broad free speech rights. Eventually conservatives also got in on the act, finding state constitutional provisions useful tools to protect religious liberty and property rights after disappointing federal decisions like Employment Division v. Smith (on religious liberty) and Kelo v. New London (on private property rights).

Prior to South Carolina’s abortion ruling, only eight state high courts had found a right to abortion under their state constitution, but many others have not plumbed the depths of their constitutions as to abortion because Roe relieved them of much need to do so. But even red or purple states Alaska, Florida, Kansas, and Mississippi, are among those with state court rulings finding state constitutional protections for abortion access.

With Roe gone, pro-lifers must now care about dozens of state high courts, composed of hundreds of justices, with each court having its own unique doctrines and precedents. And state judicial selection, which has often been a higher priority for business conservatives than for social conservatives, takes on profound new importance. This includes not only which judges are chosen, but the rules by which they are selected.

Many red states, especially in the West and Midwest, use the “Missouri Plan” to select judges, which turns power over to bar association insiders and produces judiciaries often markedly to the left of a state’s overall populace. Perhaps the silver lining will be that liberal judiciaries in places like South Carolina, which have generally operated under the radar, will finally be exposed by wrong rulings on abortion, leading to long overdue reform.

The win in Dobbs is a God-send for which the faithful had been praying for decades. But that decision will not end the fight against judicial activism. It will simply shift us to a new phase with 50 fronts in the same struggle to ensure every child is welcomed in life and protected in law.

Daniel R. Suhr

Daniel R. Suhr is an attorney who fights for freedom in courts across America. He has worked as a senior adviser for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, as a law clerk for Judge Diane Sykes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and at the national headquarters of the Federalist Society. He is a member of Christ Church Mequon. He is an Eagle Scout, and he loves spending time with his wife Anna and their two sons, Will and Graham, at their home near Milwaukee.

Read the Latest from WORLD Opinions

Brad Littlejohn | Large numbers of immigrants don’t respect the law or want to assimilate

Tyler O’Neil | Will the liberal donor class finally open its eyes?

Daniel R. Suhr | Vermont uses a scholarship program to try to force schools to comply with its LGBTQ agenda

R. Albert Mohler Jr. | Why did The New York Times use that word?


Please wait while we load the latest comments...