Introduction

Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019), is a significant Supreme Court decision addressing the constitutionality of Indiana's laws concerning the disposal of fetal remains and the prohibition of sex-, race-, and disability-selective abortions by abortion providers. The case arose when Indiana enacted provisions altering how abortion providers must handle fetal remains and imposing restrictions on abortions based on specific characteristics of the fetus. The primary parties involved were Kristina Box, Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Health, et al., as petitioners, and Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., et al., as respondents.

Summary of the Judgment

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, reversed the judgment of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Indiana’s fetal remains disposal law. The Supreme Court upheld the first provision, which regulates the disposal of fetal remains by excluding them from definitions that categorize certain biological waste, thereby preventing their incineration alongside surgical byproducts. However, the Court denied certiorari concerning the second provision that bans abortions based on the fetus's sex, race, or disability, leaving that issue unresolved.

The Court determined that Indiana has a legitimate state interest in ensuring the humane and dignified disposal of fetal remains. Under the rational basis review standard, which requires that laws be rationally related to a legitimate government interest, the Court found Indiana's regulations permissible. The decision emphasized that the state interest in proper disposal of fetal remains is recognized, overturning the Seventh Circuit's earlier ruling that had deemed the law invalid.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court referenced several key precedents that influenced its decision:

• Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pac. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992): Established the framework for evaluating abortion regulations, emphasizing the undue burden standard.
• AKRON v. AKRON CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH, Inc., 462 U.S. 416 (1983): Acknowledged a state's legitimate interest in the proper disposal of fetal remains.
• Armour v. Indianapolis, 566 U.S. 673 (2012): Affirmed that challenges to state laws under rational basis review require only that the law be logically related to a legitimate state objective.
• WASHINGTON v. GLUCKSBERG, 521 U.S. 702 (1997): Clarified that under rational basis review, the government need only demonstrate a conceivable link between the law and a legitimate interest.

These cases collectively support the idea that as long as a state presents a legitimate interest, even if the law isn't perfectly tailored to achieve that interest, it can withstand constitutional scrutiny under the rational basis test.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court's primary legal rationale centered on the application of rational basis review to Indiana’s fetal remains disposal law. Under this standard, the Court assesses whether the legislation is rationally related to a legitimate government interest.

The Court recognized that the state of Indiana has a legitimate interest in ensuring the respectful and dignified disposal of fetal remains, a stance supported by longstanding precedent. They further held that Indiana's specific provisions—such as excluding fetal remains from infectious waste definitions and mandating simultaneous cremation—are rational measures to uphold this interest, even if they allow women some discretion in the final disposition of remains.

Importantly, the Court dismissed the Seventh Circuit's argument that the law failed under rational basis review by reiterating that the burden lies with the challengers to disprove any conceivable justification for the law, not the state to prove it.

Impact

The decision upholding Indiana’s fetal remains disposal law under rational basis review sets a precedent affirming states' authority to regulate the disposition of fetal remains in ways that do not impose undue burdens on the constitutional right to abortion. This ruling may influence future cases where states seek to implement regulations that balance respect for fetal remains with women's reproductive rights.

Additionally, by denying certiorari on the second issue—prohibiting sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions—the Supreme Court left an unresolved question concerning the constitutionality of such laws. This opens the door for future litigation and potential Supreme Court review, potentially shaping the landscape of abortion regulations in the United States.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Rational Basis Review

Rational basis review is the most lenient form of judicial review used by courts to evaluate the constitutionality of legislative actions. Under this standard, a law is presumed constitutional as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. This means that even if the law is not the best way to achieve the intended goal, as long as there is a logical connection, it can be upheld.

Undue Burden

The undue burden test originates from the Casey decision and is used primarily to evaluate abortion regulations. A law imposes an undue burden if its purpose or effect is to place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before fetal viability. If a regulation fulfills this criterion, it may be deemed unconstitutional under this standard.

Per Curiam Opinion

A per curiam opinion is a ruling issued by an appellate court, including the Supreme Court, where the decision is made by the court collectively rather than authored by a specific justice. These opinions typically address cases that do not involve extensive controversy or where the decision is straightforward based on existing law.

Conclusion

In Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., the Supreme Court affirmed Indiana's authority to regulate the disposal of fetal remains under rational basis review, reinforcing states' rights to implement measures that ensure the respectful handling of such remains. This decision underscores the Court's deference to state regulations when they align with recognized legitimate interests.

While the ruling provides clarity on the matter of fetal remains disposal, it leaves open the contentious issue of prohibiting sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions, indicating that this area may see further judicial scrutiny in the future. Overall, the judgment balances the state's interest in dignified disposal practices with the constitutional framework governing abortion rights, setting a nuanced precedent for similar cases ahead.