Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-1289 - TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY et al v. PROSECUTOR OF MARION COUNTY INDIANA


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-1289 - TRUSTEES OF INDIANA UNIVERSITY et al v. PROSECUTOR OF MARION COUNTY INDIANA
December 22, 2017
PDF | More
ORDER - The Court GRANTS IN PART IU's Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing No. 77, as to IU's Due Process Clause claim, to the extent that the Court determines that the text indicated by strikethrough below is unconstitutionally vague, and Defendants are permanently enjoined from enforcing those portions: (a) As used in this section, 'aborted' means the termination of human pregnancy with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus. The term includes abortions by surgical procedures and by abortion inducing drugs, (b) As used in this section, 'fetal tissue' includes tissue, organs, of an aborted fetus, (c) This section does not apply to the proper medical disposal of fetal tissue, (d) A person who intentionally sells, or fetal tissue commits unlawful transfer of fetal tissue, a Level 5 felony, (e) A person may not alter the timing, method, or procedure used to terminate a pregnancy for the purpose of obtaining or collecting fetal tissue. A person who violates this subsection commits the unlawful collection of fetal tissue, a Level 5 felony. The Court DENIES the parties' motions for summary judgment, Filing No. 77; Filing No. 79, as to the dormant Commerce Clause and Takings Clause claims; the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing No. 79, as to the Equal Protection and First Amendment claims, and DENIES IU's Motion for Summary Judgment, Filing No. 77, as to those claims. Having concluded that the motions for summary judgment can be resolved without oral argument, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument, Filing No. 80. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 12/22/2017. (JDC)
January 19, 2018
PDF | More
AMENDED ORDER - This case is the latest in a series of challenges to various statutory provisions that were enacted as part of House Enrolled Act 1337. This Act codified a number of abortion-related provisions, some civil and some criminal. In this action, Plaintiffs the Trustees of Indiana University, Fred Cate, Dr. Bruce Lamb, and Dr. Debomoy Lahiri (collectively "IU") challenge a provision that criminalizes the acquisition, receipt, sale, and transfer of aborted fetal tissue. IU moves for summary judgment, arguing that the provision violates the United States Constitution, based on five different constitutional challenges. Defendants, the prosecutors of Marion and Monroe counties, cross-move for summary judgment, contending that the statute does not offend the Constitution. Also pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument regarding the cross-motions for summary judgment. [ Filing No. 80.] For the reasons described below, the Court concludes that the provision violates the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. It therefore grants in part IU's Motion for Summary Judgment. [Filing No. 77.] Having concluded that the Court can resolve the summary judgment motions based on the parties' briefing, the Court denies Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument. [Filing No. 80.] For the reasons stated in this Order, the Court GRANTS IN PART IU's Motion for Summary Judgment [Filing No. 77], as to IU's Due Process Clause claim; the Court DENIES the parties' motions for summary judgment, [Filing No. 77; Filing No. 79], as to the dormant Commerce Clause and Takings Clause claims; the Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 79], as to the Equal Protection and First Amendment claims, and DENIES IU's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 77], as to those claims; the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants' Motion for Oral Argument, [Filing No. 80]. The Court requests that the Magistrate Judge confer with the parties at her earliest convenience to ascertain whether the parties believe that after this Order further proceedings are necessary, or whether final judgment may issue. (SEE ORDER). Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 1/19/2018.(APD)