Federal Ruling On Idaho Trafficking Law Impacts Minors’ Rights

Pro-life rally with people holding various signs.

An unexpected judicial twist renews Idaho’s contentious “abortion trafficking” law, sparking debate over minors’ rights and free speech.

At a Glance

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstates Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law, allowing enforcement against those who transport minors without parental consent.
The court invalidates the law’s “recruitment” clause, citing First Amendment concerns.
The case highlights tensions between state abortion restrictions and minors’ rights across state lines.
Both proponents and opponents of the law find partial victory in the ruling.

Federal Appeals Court Ruling

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to partly reinstate Idaho’s “abortion trafficking” law. This law targets individuals who harbor or transport minors for out-of-state abortions without parental consent. The legal decision comes amidst a national environment where states increasingly restrict abortion following the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Idaho borders states that have more lenient abortion laws, intensifying the debate over this polarizing legislation.

However, the court did not uphold all aspects of the law. It blocked the provision that prevents “recruiting” minors for abortions, invoking the protection of free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown concluded that while harboring and transporting are not forms of protected speech, recruiting could be. Consequently, the ban on recruitment was deemed unnecessary and unconstitutional.

“Appeals court allows Idaho to enforce its ‘abortion trafficking’ law; Decision reverses district court injunction that blocked law in late 2023”: Mia Maldonado of Idaho Capital Sun has this report.

And Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that “Idaho https://t.co/ZOAPbm2a53

— Howard Bashman (@howappealing) December 3, 2024

The Legal Terrain and Reactions

This legislative measure, passed in 2023, initially sought to penalize those engaged in recruiting, harboring, or transporting minors without parental consent—penalties ranging from two to five years in prison. The lawsuit challenging it argued that these provisions infringed upon individuals’ rights to free speech, especially in contexts conveying information on legally permissible abortions outside Idaho.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador said, “We will not stop protecting life in Idaho.”

The ruling represents a partial victory for both sides. Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador celebrated the outcome, while plaintiffs like Wendy Heipt emphasized the win for free speech. Idaho now retains the ability to enforce elements of the statute—those against transporting minors—during the ongoing legal disputes.

Anti-abortion policymakers are co-opting language like ‘trafficking’ because their goal is to stop young people from accessing care by demonizing those who support them.

No matter your age, know your rights and get help understanding legal risk: https://t.co/Ogrj1H0R74 https://t.co/OKBS9oBNu5

— If/When/How: Lawyering for Reproductive Justice (@ifwhenhow) December 2, 2024

Implications and Future Considerations

Idaho’s law remains controversial, with supporters labeling it an “abortion trafficking” ban and opponents decrying it as an affront to free speech and interstate travel rights. The state’s near-total abortion ban prompts concerns over accessibility and legislative overreach. Following the appeals court’s decision, many eyes are on incoming endeavors to reevaluate or revise the law’s standing.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs, Wendy Heipt, called this, “a significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it frees Idahoans to talk with pregnant minors about abortion healthcare.”

The legal landscape surrounding abortion rights remains fraught, amplifying concerns about healthcare access for minors, the interplay with parental authority, and broader implications for free speech. Further judicial reviews or legislative actions could shape the future of this delicate issue, with ripple effects for similar laws across other states.