Northland Family Planning Centers v. Michigan

Case status: On August 21, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals kept the abortion restrictions blocked after denying the state’s request to stay enforcement of the preliminary injunction.

In November 2022—just months after the U.S. Supreme Court eliminated the federal constitutional right to abortion—Michigan voters approved an amendment to their state constitution protecting reproductive freedom, including abortion. The Reproductive Freedom For All Act (RFFA), which prohibits government infringement on the ability to make decisions about reproductive health care, is one of the broadest guarantees of reproductive freedom in the nation.

In light of the RFFA, the Michigan legislature repealed some abortion restrictions in its 2023 legislative session but retained three that are burdensome on patients, including:

• A law mandating that abortion patients wait a minimum of 24 hours after receiving biased counseling materials before they can access care.
• A law forcing clinicians to dispense, and patients to consume, biased counseling before and after the 24-hour waiting period. The biased counseling materials include information that is irrelevant, inaccurate, and stigmatizing.
• A prohibition on qualified advanced practice clinicians (APCs) providing abortion care. APCs are permitted to administer the same medications and procedures for patients experiencing early miscarriage.

On February 6, 2024, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed this case in the Michigan Court of Claims to challenge the three abortion restrictions.  

The lawsuit argues that the restrictions violate the RFFA by:

• Imposing medically unjustified restrictions on abortion. 
• Singling out abortion care for uniquely onerous treatment. 
• Discriminating against Michigan residents who already face health inequities—including Black, Indigenous, and other people of color, low-income communities, and people in rural areas of the state.

Case updates:

Although named a defendant in the case her official capacity, Michigan State Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a brief three weeks after the case was filed, agreeing that the court should temporarily block the the restrictions since they likely violate the RFFA. Other attorneys within the AG’s office intervened on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan to defend the laws.

In June, the court granted a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the three restrictions, with the exception of one element of the counseling requirement. The state subsequently filed a motion to appeal and sought a stay of the preliminary injunction. The Center opposed the state’s motion.

The Michigan Court of Appeals denied the state’s motion in August, leaving the restrictions blocked as the case proceeds.

Plaintiff(s): Northland Family Planning Centers, Medical Students for Choice 

Center Attorneys: Rabia Muqaddam, Alexandra Willingham 

Co-Counsel/Cooperating Attorney(s): David A. Moran; Jared Bobrow and Meghan Kelly, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 

Defendants: Dana Nessel, Attorney General of the State of Michigan; Marlon I. Brown, Acting Director of Michigan Licensing and Regulatory Affairs; Elizabeth Hertel, Director of the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services

Legal documents: 

• State of Michigan Court of Claims Opinion and Order, 06.25.24 
• Attorney General’s Response, 02.27.24 
• Complaint, 02.06.24 

Case news: 

• Press release: Michigan Abortion Restrictions Blocked by Court, 06.25.24 
• Aligning Michigan Abortion Laws with the Voter-Approved Reproductive Freedom Amendment, 02.06.24 
• Press release: Michigan Abortion Restrictions Challenged in Court, 02.06.24

February 06, 2024	The Center files a lawsuit in Michigan state court challenging three burdensome state abortion restrictions.
February 27, 2024	Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel files a brief agreeing that the court should temporarily block the three restrictions since they likely violate the RFFA.
June 25, 2024	The court grants a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the three restrictions, with the exception of one element of the counseling requirement.
July 12, 2024	The state files a motion for leave to file an expedited appeal and seeks a stay of the preliminary injunction.
August 21, 2024	The Michigan Court of Appeals denies the state’s motion, leaving the restrictions blocked as the case proceeds.