Note: This release was initially published late Friday, August 2nd. It has only been altered to indicate the date the brief was filed.?

LANSING ? Friday, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel filed a brief in the Court of Appeals opposing the application for leave (PDF) to appeal filed by attorneys for the People of the State of Michigan in Northland Family Planning Center, et al v. Nessel, et al. ??

The lawsuit contends that the passage of Proposal 2022-3, now enshrined in Article 1, ? 28 of the Michigan constitution, rendered several statutory regulations on abortion unconstitutional. The Department of Attorney General has erected a conflict wall on this matter. A team of assistant attorneys general, led by Deputy Solicitor General Eric Restuccia, has been assigned to defend the challenged provisions and intervened on behalf of the People of the State of Michigan. Despite being named a defendant in her official capacity, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel agrees the challenged provisions are likely unconstitutional and did not oppose the preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the challenged laws. That injunction is now the subject of an appeal by the team defending the challenged provisions. ? ? ?

The provisions subject to the injunction are the ?24-Hour Delay,? ?Mandatory Biased Counseling,? and the ?Provider Ban? contained in the Public Health Code. ? ??

?The injunction barring the enforcement of these select provisions is proper, as the Court correctly agreed the challenged laws are likely unconstitutional,? said Nessel. ?I remain committed to defending the reproductive freedoms Michiganders deserve, and emphatically supported enshrining in our state constitution.??

Attorney General Nessel argued in her brief that Article 1, ? 28 of the Michigan constitution does not incorporate any ?undue? or ?substantial? burden analysis, as contended in the application for appeal, and instead prohibits any denial, burden, or infringement on the right to an abortion that does not meet the provision?s compelling interest test. This test, argues the Attorney General, sets forth a strict scrutiny standard that the State must overcome to defend or impose any abortion regulations pertaining to pregnancies pre-viability.?

Plaintiffs also sued Department of Health and Human Services Director Elizabeth Hertel and Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Director Marlon Brown. ?

?

###

???

?

?

?