Center for Reproductive Rights
Donate
icon-hamburger icon-magnifying-glass Donate
icon-magnifying-glass-teal

Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Drew H. Wrigley (North Dakota)

Menu Close Menu Close icon
Donate
Post-Roe State Abortion Ban Litigation

Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Drew H. Wrigley (North Dakota)

Filing date: 07.07.2022
This case challenged North Dakota’s “trigger” abortion ban, and then its amended near-total abortion ban.

Case update: On September 12, 2024, North Dakota’s total abortion ban was ruled unconstitutional by a state court, meaning that abortion will again be legal in the state. Read more about the ruling here. On October 10, 2024, the state’s motion to stay the ruling was denied. A trial in the case was held March 25, 2025, at the North Dakota Supreme Court.

In 2007, North Dakota lawmakers passed H.B. 1466, a “trigger” ban which was designed to outlaw most of the abortion services in the state within 30 days of judgment if the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The law would make it a felony to provide abortion care, with exceptions only for the life of the mother, rape, or incest.

After the Supreme Court took away the constitutional right to abortion on June 24, 2022, the Center for Reproductive Rights and its partners filed a lawsuit on July 7 challenging North Dakota’s ban. The lawsuit, Access Independent Health Services, Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Drew H. Wrigley, argued that the ban violates the North Dakota Constitution, which protects abortion under the rights of life, liberty, safety, and happiness.

The lawsuit also disputed the trigger ban’s effective date, as the U.S. Supreme Court’s judgments are typically issued at least 25 days after its opinions are released. However, North Dakota Attorney General Drew Wrigley triggered the ban just days after the Supreme Court released its opinion revoking the constitutional right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and wrongly stated that abortion would be banned in the state after July 28.

The Burleigh County District Court first issued a temporary restraining order blocking the trigger ban on July 27, holding that Attorney General Wrigley’s certification of the law was premature and that the ban was set to go into effect on August 26.

On August 25, the district court blocked North Dakota’s trigger ban. The court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the ban until a further court order is issued or litigation ends. On October 31, the district court judge once again blocked the ban from taking effect, noting that there is a “substantial probability” that the challenge will succeed. As a result, abortion remained legal in North Dakota while litigation continued. 

Oral arguments were presented on November 29, 2022, at the North Dakota Supreme Court. 

North Dakota Supreme Court Ruling

On March 16, 2023, the North Dakota Supreme Court blocked the state’s “trigger ban,” because it did not allow for life- or health-preserving abortions. The Court held that the “North Dakota Constitution explicitly provides all citizens of North Dakota the right of enjoying and defending life and pursuing and obtaining safety. These rights implicitly include the right to obtain an abortion to preserve the woman’s life or health.” With the ruling, abortion remained legal in North Dakota while litigation in state court continued.

The following month, North Dakota lawmakers passed an amended near-total abortion ban, which is currently in effect. The medical exceptions language in the ban is extremely vague and makes it unclear how sick or near-death a patient must be before a doctor can intervene, or whether abortion is permitted when the fetus has a fatal condition. The ban contains a similarly confusing and narrow sex offenses exception that is limited to the first six weeks of pregnancy and would force physicians to determine whether a sex offense occurred before being able to provide an abortion. 

The state’s amended abortion ban was at issue at a hearing held December 20 at the North Dakota District Court. The hearing addressed the Center’s request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the state’s amended abortion ban against physicians who in their good faith medical judgment, and in consultation with their patients, provide a health-preserving abortion.

In a preliminary ruling on January 23, 2024, the state court denied the Center’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court did not address the constitutional questions that are the focus of the case and will issue a final ruling after a hearing on the merits of the case.

Ban Ruled Unconstitutional

On September 12, 2024, the court ruled North Dakota’s total abortion ban unconstitutional, meaning that abortion will again be legal in the state. Since the state’s constitution guarantees the fundamental right to make medical judgments affecting one’s bodily integrity, Judge Bruce Romanick’s opinion said it “specifically protects a woman’s right to procreative autonomy – including to seek and obtain a pre-viability abortion.” Read about that ruling here.

The state’s motion to stay the ruling was denied on October 10, 2024.

A trial is scheduled to be held at 10 a.m. on March 25, 2025, at the North Dakota Supreme Court.

Attorneys and Plaintiffs

Center Attorneys: Meetra Mehdizadeh 

Co-Counsel/Cooperating Attorneys: Christina A. Sambor, Weil, Gotshal & Manges 

Plaintiffs: Red River Women’s Clinic, on behalf of itself and its patients; Kathryn L. Eggleston, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients; Ana Tobiasz, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients; Erica Hofland, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients; and Collette Lessard, M.D., on behalf of herself and her patients

Timeline:

June 24, 2022 The U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade and takes away the constitutional right to abortion. The Attorney General issues a statement certifying that North Dakota’s trigger ban, which prohibits nearly all abortions in the state, would take effect in 30 days.
July 07, 2022 The Center and its partners challenge H.B. 1466 in Burleigh County District Court, arguing that the ban violates the North Dakota Constitution.
July 27, 2022 The district court issues a temporary restraining order blocking the ban, on the basis that the attorney general’s certification of the trigger ban on June 24 was premature.
August 25, 2022 The district court issues a preliminary injunction, blocking the ban while litigation continues.
October 31, 2022 Following an order from the state supreme court to reconsider his August 25 decision, the district court judge once again issues a decision blocking the ban from going into effect. The judge’s order further finds that there is a “substantial probability” the challenge will succeed.
November 29, 2022 Oral arguments are held at the North Dakota Supreme Court.
March 16, 2023 The North Dakota Supreme Court rules that the state’s “trigger” total abortion ban can remain blocked since the Center’s challenge to the ban is likely to succeed. Abortion remains legal in North Dakota while litigation in state court continues.
April 24, 2023 North Dakota enacts an amended near-total abortion ban.
June 12, 2023 The Center files an amended complaint.
December 20, 2023 Hearing takes place at the North Dakota District Court on the Center’s request for a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of the state’s amended ban against physicians who provide health-preserving abortion care.
January 23, 2024 The court denies the Center’s request to block the law while the case proceeds on the merits.
September 12, 2024 North Dakota’s total abortion ban is ruled unconstitutional by a state court, meaning that abortion will again be legal in the state.
October 10, 2024 The state’s motion to stay the ruling was denied.
March 25, 2025 Trial held at the North Dakota Supreme Court at 10:00 a.m.

Amicus briefs:

A range of experts filed amicus (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of the plaintiffs in this case. The briefs were filed in the North Dakota Supreme Court regarding the state’s appeal of a lower district court ruling declaring the ban unconstitutional under the state’s constitution.

Read the briefs here submitted by major medical groups, medical students, legal historians, and scholars of self-defense rights.

Read more: