Planned Parenthood v. State

Does Montana Require Parental Consent for a Minor’s Abortion? Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2024 MT 178

Boland Aarab PLLP

Not under the 2013 consent law. In Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2024 MT 178, the Montana Supreme Court held that the Parental Consent for Abortion Act of 2013 violates a minor’s fundamental right of privacy and her right to equal protection under the Montana Constitution. All seven participating justices agreed that the Act is unconstitutional; Justice Rice concurred separately and would have reached the result on a different equal-protection analysis.

Key Takeaways

  • Under Article II, Section 15, minors have the same fundamental rights as adults, not more. The State may limit those rights only by laws that clearly enhance the protection of minors (Planned Parenthood ¶ 21).
  • A minor’s right of privacy includes procreative autonomy and the right to make medical decisions with a chosen health care provider (¶ 24).
  • Because the Act burdened a fundamental right, strict scrutiny applied and the burden shifted to the State, which did not show the Act was narrowly tailored to a compelling interest (¶¶ 25, 49).
  • The judicial-waiver (“bypass”) procedure did not save the Act (¶¶ 51–55).

In this case sheet: At a glance · What the Court held · What changed · Laws · When it applies · How hard · Related law and later decisions · FAQ

The lawyers behind this brief are the lawyers who handle yours. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

At a glance

CitationPlanned Parenthood of Montana v. State, 2024 MT 178, 417 Mont. 457, 554 P.3d 153
CourtMontana Supreme Court. Opinion by Justice Laurie McKinnon, joined by Justices Shea, Gustafson, Sandefur and Baker and District Judge Elizabeth A. Best (sitting for Chief Justice McGrath). Justice Rice specially concurred.
DecidedAugust 14, 2024 (argued March 6, 2024)
DocketDA 23-0272, on appeal from the First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County
ResultSummary judgment for the plaintiffs upheld; the Parental Consent for Abortion Act held unconstitutional
Firm roleCaitlin Boland Aarab, Boland Aarab PLLP, with Jessica S. Goldberg of If/When/How, counsel for amici curiae Forward Montana, If/When/How, and Indigenous Women Rising (supporting the plaintiffs)
Read the opinionOfficial opinion (Montana Judicial Branch, PDF)

Case documents

Read the full opinion (PDF) →

What did the Montana Supreme Court hold in Planned Parenthood of Montana v. State?

The law. The 2013 Consent Act barred a physician or physician assistant from performing an abortion on a minor without the notarized written consent of a parent or guardian, unless a court granted a waiver (¶¶ 1, 7). The Act required a state-prescribed consent form, government-issued identification and proof of parentage, and it carried criminal penalties (¶¶ 7–12). A minor could instead petition a youth court for a waiver (¶ 13). The Act imposed no similar requirement on a minor seeking other pregnancy-related care (¶ 1).

The long road. The Attorney General agreed to a preliminary injunction in 2013, so the Consent Act never took effect (¶ 3). After an earlier appeal on a preclusion question, a series of judicial substitutions, recusals and retirements delayed a merits ruling until February 2023 (¶ 4). The district court then granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and certified that ruling for appeal (¶ 5).

The holding. The Supreme Court held:

  1. Minors’ rights. Article II, Section 15 gives minors the same fundamental rights as adults. An exception requires a clear showing that the law enhances minors’ protection. The Court “repudiate[d]” a contrary statement in In re S.L.M. (1997) (¶ 21).
  2. Privacy. Minors, like adults, have a fundamental right of privacy that includes procreative autonomy. The Act infringed that right by conditioning abortion, and nothing else pregnancy-related, on parental consent or a court waiver (¶ 24).
  3. Equal protection. The Act created two classes of similarly situated pregnant minors, those who seek an abortion and those who do not, and burdened only the first (¶ 28).
  4. Strict scrutiny not met. The Court accepted that some of the State’s interests were compelling, but held the Act was not narrowly tailored to any of them. Those interests were protecting minors from sexual victimization, protecting their psychological and physical wellbeing, protecting them from their own immaturity, and promoting parental rights (¶¶ 30–49).
  5. Judicial waiver. The bypass procedure “cannot save” the Act, because it also singles out minors seeking abortion and adds delay and disclosure of private medical information (¶¶ 51–55).

The Court stressed that its decision “is not based on” the moral, medical and societal questions about abortion (¶ 56).

The special concurrence. Justice Rice agreed that the Act fails strict scrutiny under the privacy clause. He would not have reached equal protection, and he would have framed the relevant classes as minors and adults seeking abortion, a distinction based on age (¶¶ 57, 60–64). He also criticized the nearly eight-year delay in the district court (¶ 58).

What did Planned Parenthood change in Montana law?

  • Minors’ rights clarified. The Court corrected its 1997 statement in S.L.M. that an exception must “enhance the rights of minors.” The test is whether the law enhances the protection of minors (¶ 21; see also Rice, J., ¶ 59).
  • Privacy applied to minors. The Court applied Armstrong v. State (1999) and Weems v. State (2023) to minors’ reproductive and medical decisions (¶¶ 22–24).
  • A three-part burden on the State. When a law infringes a minor’s privacy, the State must show a compelling interest and narrow tailoring, and must make a clear showing that the minor’s protection is enhanced (¶ 25).

Later Montana Supreme Court decisions cite the case, including Planned Parenthood v. State, 2024 MT 228; Cross v. State, 2024 MT 303; Held v. State, 2024 MT 312; Planned Parenthood v. State, 2025 MT 120; State v. Post, 2025 MT 215; Kalarchik v. State, 2026 MT 76; and State v. Morris, 2026 MT 143. They cite it for points ranging from the standard of review to equal protection and parental rights.

For the firm’s plain-language overview of the broader subject, see our earlier post on Montana abortion law.

Which Montana laws and rules apply?

When might Planned Parenthood apply to you?

  • A teenager’s medical care. A minor seeking reproductive health care in Montana cannot be required to obtain parental consent or a court waiver under the 2013 Consent Act.
  • Any law that treats minors differently. When a statute limits a fundamental right of people under 18, the State must show it enhances their protection (¶¶ 21, 25). That test can matter outside the abortion context.
  • Parents’ rights questions. The Court recognized parents’ fundamental right to parent, but held it is a right to be free from state interference, “not a right to enlist the state’s powers” to control a child’s exercise of her own rights (¶ 48).

A separate parental-notice law was not before the Court in this appeal (¶ 3).

How hard is it to challenge a Montana statute as unconstitutional?

It is usually hard:

  • Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the challenger bears the burden of proving otherwise (¶ 16).
  • The balance changes when a law infringes a fundamental right. Strict scrutiny then shifts the burden to the State to prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring (¶¶ 16, 25).
  • Here the case came up on summary judgment, which the Court reviews de novo, and constitutional questions get plenary review (¶¶ 14–15).

The record mattered. The Court noted that the State did not address Weems in its briefing and produced no evidence that differed materially from the Weems record on the safety of abortion care (¶ 31).

Statutes and rules

Later decisions citing this case

The Boland Aarab Way

Caitlin Boland Aarab of Boland Aarab PLLP represented amici curiae Forward Montana, If/When/How, and Indigenous Women Rising in this appeal, supporting the plaintiffs. Amicus briefs are a chance to show a court how a rule will reach real people. That is the same work we bring to our serious trucking and injury cases and catastrophic injury cases: know the record and the law, and make the court see the person. When you hire Boland Aarab, you work directly with the attorneys whose names appear in opinions like this one.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do minors have constitutional rights in Montana? Yes. Article II, Section 15 gives people under 18 all the fundamental rights in Montana’s Declaration of Rights, unless a law specifically precludes a right in order to enhance their protection (Planned Parenthood ¶ 21).

Did the Court decide whether abortion is right or wrong? No. The Court said its decision “is not based on, nor do we presume to answer,” the moral, medical and societal questions about abortion (¶ 56).

Why didn’t the judicial bypass save the law? The Court held that the waiver process itself singles out minors seeking abortion, requires them to disclose private medical information in court, and causes delay, so it does not enhance their protection (¶¶ 51–55).

Work With the Lawyers Behind These Cases

Boland Aarab is a Great Falls trial firm. The same attorneys who brief and argue before the Montana Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit handle our clients’ serious injury, trucking and wrongful-death cases from the first call. Contact Boland Aarab PLLP for a free consultation at (406) 315-3737.

About Boland Aarab PLLP: Boland Aarab PLLP is a Great Falls, Montana trial firm. Its attorneys, Caitlin Boland Aarab and Samir F. Aarab, have appeared in more than 40 matters before the Montana Supreme Court and have argued twice before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The firm carries on the Great Falls practice Thomas E. Boland began in 1974. Meet our attorneys.

Sources:

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.