This year might set a record with five lawsuits challenging newly enacted laws, all filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
When I began covering the legislature in 1999, legal challenges to the constitutionality of new legislation were a significant event. Back then, even a hint of a lawsuit during the session would make legislators reconsider.
Part of this shift can be attributed to the GOP supermajority, which now appears to regard these lawsuits as an anticipated part of governing. It’s almost become routine.
To be fair, even when lawmakers work with opposing viewpoints and make substantial changes, lawsuits still follow. Moreover, our society has become increasingly litigious.
These lawsuits come with their own costs.
The attorney general’s office handles these cases with its existing resources, though it occasionally brings in outside experts and attorneys for assistance. If the state loses, it must cover the ACLU’s attorney fees. For years, the state lost numerous cases related to abortion regulations, costing taxpayers millions. However, since the overturning of Roe last year, the tide has turned in favor of the state.
While some issues are bound to end up in litigation, others can be avoided with more careful consideration.
Let’s examine this year’s cases:
Senate Enrolled Act 480 banned gender-affirming care for minors, including puberty blockers and hormone replacement therapies, even when authorized by parents. A federal judge issued an injunction to protect medical care but allowed the surgical ban to take effect. This case essentially revolves around parental rights in making medical decisions for their children.
House Enrolled Act 1569 barred the Indiana Department of Correction from funding gender reassignment surgery for inmates. This lawsuit is on behalf of Autumn Cordellioné, an adult transgender female prisoner. Lawmakers argue that this is an elective procedure and that they have a responsibility to oversee state spending.
House Enrolled Act 1050 granted individuals from Ukraine on humanitarian parole the right to obtain an ID or driver’s license but excluded other countries, including Haitian refugees who filed the lawsuit. This case raises concerns about unequal privileges based on national origin, which is not allowed under Indiana’s civil rights protections.
House Enrolled Act 1186 established a 25-foot buffer zone around police, with bystanders prohibited from crossing it. Critics argue that this could be used to prevent recording of police activities, limiting accountability. The constitutionality of this law is under scrutiny.
House Enrolled Act 1608, known as the pronoun law, includes a section requiring schools to notify parents if a child changes their name or pronouns. While this part was not challenged, another section prohibiting the teaching of human sexuality to students from kindergarten through third grade faced legal action. A federal judge denied an injunction, citing that government employees, such as public school teachers, don’t have First Amendment protection for their speech while on the job.
It’s evident that there’s room for improvement on all sides of these issues.
Lawmakers should take these legal challenges into greater consideration. However, those unhappy with the laws should also refrain from using the courts as a backdoor means to address their grievances.