Wyoming National Abortion Rights Action League v. Karpan
Wyoming Supreme Court
881 P.2d 281 (1994)

- Written by Joe Cox, JD
Facts
A proposed ballot initiative in Wyoming called the Wyoming Human Life Protection Act was facially at odds with the existing law of abortion as elucidated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Among other provisions, the initiative sought to criminalize and prohibit abortion. Concerned citizens including the Wyoming National Abortion Rights Action League (the concerned citizens) (plaintiffs) filed suits against Wyoming Secretary of State Kathy Karpan (defendant), seeking to bar the initiative from the ballot because of its apparent unconstitutionality. Other provisions within the initiative were not unconstitutional, including a bar to the use of state funds for abortion, except in instances of sexual assault, incest, or endangerment of the mother’s health. Ultimately, there was a split of authority on the question of barring an initiative on the basis that it was facially unconstitutional. The rule applied by the majority of jurisdictions was that the constitutionality of an initiative could be reviewed and determined only after the initiative was actually enacted. Other jurisdictions allowed challenges to the constitutionality of an initiative before it appeared on the ballot if the initiative was wholly unconstitutional. The trial court found that the measure could proceed to the ballot, and the concerned citizens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.