This story was originally published in the Lincoln Journal Star.
A nonpartisan civic organization has filed a friend-of-the-court brief in a case before the Nebraska Supreme Court over the law that added restrictions for abortion and gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth.
The League of Women Voters of Nebraska isn’t a party to the case filed by The ACLU of Nebraska on behalf of Planned Parenthood and later appealed when a district judge ruled against them this summer.
But in December, the group that encourages informed and active participation in government and increased public understanding of major policy issues asked for — and got — permission to file a so-called amicus brief in support of Planned Parenthood.
“Based on its expertise and experience, the LWVNE believes the legislative single subject rule in Article III, section 14 of the Nebraska Constitution serves important democratic purposes that were failed in the case of LB574,” attorney Beth Neitzel wrote.
She said, accordingly, the group seeks to participate in the case to urge the court to vacate the trial court’s judgment, reaffirm the single subject rule’s significance, and invalidate LB574.
Neitzel said the case presents an important constitutional question for the state of Nebraska.
“Does the single subject rule in Article III, section 14 of the Nebraska Constitution still serve to check legislative misdeeds and safeguard political transparency? Does it, in other words, still have teeth?” she said.
The ACLU of Nebraska, which sued the state on behalf of Planned Parenthood after the new abortion restrictions were signed into law by Gov. Jim Pillen in May, raised the same issue unsuccessfully in Lancaster County District Court in May.
Their attorneys argued the Legislature had violated the single-subject rule of the Nebraska State Constitution by “jamming together” two unrelated provisions into a single bill.
After a six-week abortion ban fell one vote short of advancing in April, senators successfully amended a 12-week abortion ban onto another bill (LB574) prohibiting certain medical procedures for transgender youth in Nebraska late in the legislative session.
The bill passed on a 33-15 vote, just enough to defeat a filibuster.
n August, Lancaster County District Judge Lori Maret rejected the argument, siding with the Attorney General’s Office, which said all parts of the bill related to health care.
“They are both medical treatments involving surgery or pharmaceuticals,” the judge wrote in an order that left in place Nebraska’s 12-week abortion ban, which took effect in May, and restrictions related to gender-affirming care that took effect Oct. 1.
Neitzel said that in the mid-20th century the single-subject rule was enshrined in the constitutions of 43 states, including Nebraska’s, to prevent proposals from being rolled together into one bill to gain majority support and to facilitate political transparency for both citizens and legislators.
“These concerns remain relevant today — as LB574 well illustrates,” she said.
In a brief filed last month, Nebraska Solicitor General Eric Hamilton said LB574 did not violate the Constitution’s single-subject rule for legislative bills.
“The bill had a single subject expressed in its title — public health and welfare. Each provision of the bill was germane and related to public health and welfare. This is sufficient under this court’s precedent. Appellants’ attempt to cast LB574’s subject as something other than public health and welfare departs from this court’s history of deferring to the Legislature’s description of its own bills,” he wrote.
The case is not yet set for oral arguments.