The Alliance Defending Freedom has filed an amicus brief in Planned Parenthood of Michigan v. Attorney General of the State of Michigan on behalf of Michigan Right to Life and the Michigan Catholic Conference, arguing in part that the presiding judge ought to recuse herself due to conflicts of interest.
The case, which I wrote about briefly last week, appears to be a cooperative effort between Planned Parenthood and Dana Nessel, Michigan’s Democratic attorney general. Their suit is an attempt to invalidate an existing 1931 ban on most abortions, which would take effect if Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were overturned. The suit argues that the law violates the Michigan constitution’s guarantees of liberty, bodily integrity, equal protection, and privacy, as well as the protections of state civil-rights provisions. Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer has taken legal action of her own against the law.
In the amicus brief, the pro-life groups argue that Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit is invalid on a number of grounds. Even if the suit isn’t dismissed as they suggest it should be, the brief points out that the presiding judge ought to recuse herself given her previous work on behalf of the abortion-rights movement:
The presiding judge, who in private practice used to represent Planned Parenthood on behalf of the ACLU in seeking to invalidate Michigan pro-life laws, who has received an award from Planned Parenthood, and who continues to make annual contributions to Planned Parenthood since taking the bench, seeks to preside over a case where the ACLU represents Planned Parenthood, seeking to invalidate all of Michigan’s pro-life laws and to create a non-existent right to abortion in Michigan’s Constitution. Because any reasonable, disinterested observer would question the appearance of the judge’s impartiality in such circumstances, recusal is required under Michigan’s Code of Judicial Conduct.
The brief goes on to note that when she was serving as an ACLU lawyer, the judge challenged Michigan pro-life laws requiring informed consent before abortions, prohibiting public funding for abortions, requiring minors to obtain the parental consent before an abortion. It also points out that, though she disclosed her ongoing donations to Planned Parenthood of Michigan, the judge “did not disclose her work in the several additional matters noted above, or her Planned Parenthood award.”
“Given her long history of working with the ACLU in support of Planned Parenthood and its collaborators on substantially similar matters . . . and the fact that her charitable contributions are effectively helping fund this litigation, there can be no doubt that this conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to oversee this case with impartiality has been compromised,” the brief adds.
Lawmakers in most states are attempting to revise their abortion policies in anticipation of a Supreme Court ruling in this term’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which many believe will overturn Roe and Casey. In Michigan, rather than leave the matter up to the state legislature, pro-abortion politicians, activists, and, in this case, a judge are attempting an end run around the legislative process to preserve abortion on demand.