Court Opinion

ID: 9804465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 16:49:23.222014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:13:46.574576
License: Public Domain

CROTHERS, Justice.
[¶ 157] On the merits, I concur in the result reached by Justice Kapsner. I respectfully disagree with the result reached by Chief Justice VandeWalle. I respectfully disagree with both of my colleagues that this case should be decided under the North Dakota Constitution because the federal constitutional interpretations which we must follow make analysis under our constitution unnecessary and doctrinally improper.
[¶ 158] I also respectfully disagree with Justice Sandstrom’s suggestion that the challenge before this Court can be decided only under the North Dakota Constitution. Sandstrom opinion at ¶ 168. I find no support for that position and, apparently, neither do my colleagues. See Vande-Walle opinion at ¶ 39 (“The district court’s analysis was primarily under the state constitution, but the court also described case law analyzing the right to abortion under the federal constitution and said the challenged provisions also were unconstitutional under federal precedent prohibiting regulations placing an undue burden on a woman’s right to an abortion before viability.”); Kapsner opinion at ¶ 71 (“The court further ruled the state and federal constitutional provisions were violated.... ”).
[¶ 159] Justice Sandstrom describes the district court as making only brief reference to H.B. 1297 violating the United States Constitution. (“The district court ... also said the statute violates the United States Constitution_”). Sandstrom opinion at ¶ 169. That is a description with which I must again respectfully disagree. The district court expressly decided the case under both the United States and the North Dakota Constitutions. In the district court’s concluding words:
“The amendments violate the fundamental rights protected by the first and twelfth sections of article one of the Constitution of North Dakota. No compelling state interest justifies this infringement, and the amendments certainly have not been narrowly drafted to avoid unnecessary infringement. As the amendments place multiple undue burdens on a woman’s rights to choose, they also fail under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.”
(Emphasis added).
[¶ 160] The district court’s holding was preceded by extensive citation to federal judicial rulings, including four pages of analysis under the heading “Federal Law.” The district court’s “Federal Law” discussion opened with the sentence, “If it is ultimately determined that the liberty and freedoms guaranteed by the state constitution to [sic] not extend to a woman’s repro*92ductive rights, or if the state constitution is subsequently amended to eliminate those rights, then the protections afforded by the federal constitution will need to be considered.” (Footnote omitted). The district court’s words were not merely a forecast of what might be required in the future. Instead, the district court proceeded in this case to decide the federal constitutional issue. This is evident by the holding cited above and by the conclusion of the district court’s “Federal Law” discussion stating, “Therefore, it is clear the amendments also violate the fourteenth amendment of the United States Constitution.”
[¶ 161] Because the district court decided the constitutionality of H.B. 1297, the North Dakota Supreme Court is obliged to adhere to our established principles of constitutional interpretation and application. The first of those principles is that the North Dakota Constitution can grant greater rights, but we are not at liberty to construe the North Dakota Constitution to grant fewer rights than those ensured by similar provisions in the United States Constitution. This result obtains from our precedent. State v. Nordquist, 309 N.W.2d 109, 113 (N.D.1981) (“It is a topic of little debate that the States are ‘independently responsible for safeguarding the rights of their citizens.’ In this regard a State may provide its citizens greater protection than the safeguards guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.”) (citations omitted); State v. Matthews, 216 N.W.2d 90, 99 (N.D.1974) (“It is within the power of this court to apply higher constitutional standards than are required of the States by the Federal Constitution.”); Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S.Ct. 619, 30 L.Ed.2d 618, (1972); State v. Taylor, 60 Wis.2d 506, 210 N.W.2d 873, 882 (1973); Southeast Cass Water Res. Dist. v. Burlington N. R.R. Co., 527 N.W.2d 884, 890 (N.D.1995) (“[W]e cannot interpret our state constitution to grant narrower rights than guaranteed by the federal constitution.”). This result obtains from the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. art. 6, cl. 2. And this result obtains from the North Dakota Constitution acknowledging federal constitutional interpretations as “the supreme law of the land.” N.D. Const. art I, § 23.
[¶ 162] A second established principle of constitutional interpretation and application is that courts do not render advisory opinions. “A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them.” Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 445, 108 S.Ct. 1319, 99 L.Ed.2d 534 (1988). “Courts should think carefully before expending scarce judicial resources to resolve difficult and novel questions of constitutional or statutory interpretation that will have no effect on the outcome of the case.” Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 2074, 2080, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
[¶ 163] This Court long ago and consistently has recognized we are without authority to give advisory opinions. See, e.g., State v. State Bd. of Canvassers, 44 N.D. 126, 172 N.W. 80, 85 (1919) (“The opinion of the court upon this question during the pendency of legislative action would amount to no more than an advisory opinion for the guidance of the other departments. Under the Constitution we are not authorized to perform such a function.”); Interest of C.W., 453 N.W.2d 806, 810 (N.D.1990) (We “should not give advisory opinions on academic questions where no actual controversy needs to be determined.”). This is never more true than when the issue involves interpretation of a *93constitutional provision. See State v. King, 355 N.W.2d 807, 809 (N.D.1984) (“Although both litigants have urged us to decide the constitutional question they have posited, to do so based on the present state of the ‘record’ would amount to nothing more than an advisory opinion on an abstract, hypothetical legal question.”); State v. Meiers, 403 N.W.2d 392, 393 n. 1 (N.D.1987) (“Until a party aggrieved by the application of a statute raises the issue of its constitutionality in an actual litigated controversy, a determination of the constitutional question would constitute the rendering of an advisory opinion. It is well settled that courts cannot give advisory opinions.”) (citations omitted); Rocky Mountain Oil & Gas Ass’n v. Conrad, 405 N.W.2d 279, 284 (N.D.1987) (“Deciding the constitutional question without evidence of interstate commerce would amount to nothing more than giving an advisory opinion on an abstract, hypothetical legal question.”).1
[¶ 164] On the substantive questions regarding constitutionality of the challenged provisions, the district court and the VandeWalle and Kapsner opinions of this Court all acknowledge that our holding here can recognize no less freedom from governmental intrusion than controlling federal constitutional interpretations. VandeWalle opinion at ¶ 41; Kapsner opinion at ¶ 114. They do this because the United States Constitution provides a floor below which a similar state constitution provision cannot be construed to provide those challenging the law with fewer or narrower rights.. See Southeast Cass Water Res. Dist., 527 N.W.2d at 890. The analytical point of departure for my colleagues and me is that they first address the question under our state constitution. I would first answer the question under federal precedent. Only if the law survives federal constitutional review does it become necessary to determine whether more expansive individual rights are protected under the North Dakota Constitution. I recognize that states do not uniformly apply this approach; however, our precedent prohibiting advisory opinions and advocating judicial restraint direct that it is the proper approach here. See 16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law § 157 (“Some state courts address state constitutional claims before reaching the federal ones, while another reaches the federal constitutional claim first, unless it appears that the state provision is distinctive.”) (footnotes omitted).
*94[¶ 165] Despite being asked to confine its ruling to the North Dakota Constitution, the district court found H.B. 1297 violated the United States Constitution. Supra, at ¶¶ 158-61; VandeWalle opinion at ¶ 89; Kapsner opinion at ¶ 71. For the reasons explained in, and on the federal authority cited throughout Justice Kaps-ner’s opinion, particularly in Part V, the district court’s analysis should be affirmed under substantive federal law and its findings are supported by evidence in the record. Upon determining that H.B. 1297 imposes an impermissible burden on the federal right to an abortion, I submit we have nothing left to decide under the North Dakota Constitution. Even if we were so inclined, we are not constitutionally permitted to enforce an interpretation under the North Dakota Constitution protecting fewer rights than are protected under the coordinate provisions in the United States Constitution. As a result, the challenges to H.B. 1297 have been answered by analysis under federal constitutional law and we provide inappropriate advice by passing judgment one way or the other under North Dakota’s Constitution. Therefore on the merits, I concur in the result of the opinion authored by Justice Kapsner.
[¶ 166] Regarding the effect of this Court’s ruling on the injunction, I agree with Chief Justice VandeWalle, and respectfully disagree with Justice Kapsner, that the division of positions in this case requires reversal of the judgment declaring H.B. 1297 unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the State from enforcing H.B. 1297. VandeWalle opinion at ¶ 60; Kapsner opinion at ¶¶ 151-55. Article VI, section 4, of the North Dakota Constitution, requires that at least four of five justices agree to declare a legislative enactment unconstitutional. That provision constricts this Court’s ability to declare a statute unconstitutional. Article VI, section 4, does not specify that the restriction only operates when a legislative enactment is struck down under the North Dakota Constitution. Rather, the focus of Article VI, section 4 is on the striking down of a legislative enactment, and not whether unconstitutionality arises under the United States Constitution or the North Dakota Constitution. Because only three of five justices conclude H.B. 1297 is unconstitutional, the district court’s judgment should be reversed.
[¶ 167] DANIEL J. CROTHERS, J.
SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 168] The sole constitutional issue properly before this Court is whether the contested statute — House Bill 1297 — violates the North Dakota Constitution. Whether that statute violates the United States Constitution is not an issue that was pled or tried in the district court, it is not an issue specified on appeal by either party, and it is not properly before this Court.
[¶ 169] The plaintiffs made a conscious decision to seek to establish a separate state constitutional right to an abortion under the North Dakota Constitution. Presumably, they did so as a backup in case a right to an abortion ever ceases to exist under the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs never argued that the bill was unconstitutional under the United States Constitution. They never pled a United States Constitutional violation. A United States Constitutional violation was never tried by consent. The district court, in its 55-page order, also said the statute violates the United States Constitution, but the issue was not pled or tried by consent and thus was not before the district court, and the district court did not say how the issue was before it.
[¶ 170] The Chief Justice persuasively argues there is no separate state constitu*95tional right to an abortion. I would not reach the U.S. Constitutional issue, which was never pled and was never tried by consent. Justice Crothers concludes that answering the question of whether the statute violates the North Dakota Constitution is inappropriate because it would be an “advisory opinion.” That, too, would justify reversing, but it does not allow reaching a question not properly before the district court or this Court.
[¶171] I would reverse the district court.
[¶ 172] A court is limited to deciding issues properly before it. When an issue has not been raised in the pleadings, it cannot be tried except by the parties’ express or implied consent. N.D.R.Civ.P. 15(b). This Court has explained the process for amending the pleadings in this manner:
Under N.D.R.Civ.P. 15(b), a pleading may be impliedly amended by the introduction of evidence which varies the theory of the case and which is not objected to on the grounds it is not within the issues in the pleadings. Aho v. Maragos, 2000 ND 14, ¶ 7, 605 N.W.2d 161; Schumacher [v. Schumacher], 1999 ND 149, ¶ 26, 598 N.W.2d 131. However, amendment of pleadings by implication may only arise when the evidence introduced is not relevant to any issue pleaded in the case.
Mann v. Zabolotny, 2000 ND 160, ¶ 12, 615 N.W.2d 526. Here all the evidence introduced was relevant to the state constitutional issue.
[¶ 178] Recently, in SolarBee, Inc. v. Walker, 2013 ND 110, ¶¶ 2-5, 833 N.W.2d 422, this Court, composed of all the same members who sit on this case, was asked to reverse the district court because it decided the case at least in part on an issue not pled. This Court affirmed because the issue not pled was specified in the pretrial brief and specifically argued at trial without objection. Id. at ¶¶ 14-16. “We conclude that the ‘novelty5 of the ... issue was reasonably apparent and the intent to try the issue was ‘clearly indicated by failure to object or otherwise.’ ” Id. at ¶ 16 (citing Mann, 2000 ND 160, ¶ 13, 615 N.W.2d 526).
[¶ 174] In this case the plaintiffs’ complaint has seven claims for relief, each alleging H.B. 1297 violates the North Dakota Constitution. Those claims are as follows:

First Claim for Relief

(Right to Terminate a Pregnancy)
94. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 93 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
95. House Bill 1297 impermissibly burdens the Clinic’s patients seeking medication abortions in violation of Article I, §§ 1 and 12 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota by:
a. banning all medication abortions;
b. banning medication abortion for women between 50 and 63 days of pregnancy;
c. banning safer and more effective regimens for the provision of medication abortions;
d. banning medication abortions even when a surgical abortion would threaten a woman’s health; and
e. requiring women to receive misleading information regarding treatment in the case of an emergency.

Second Claim for Relief

(Vagueness)
*9696. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 95 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
97. House Bill 1297 fails to give the Clinic, Dr. Eggleston and the Clinic’s staff adequate notice of the conduct that will subject abortion providers to criminal liability and subjects them to arbitrary enforcement by:
a. using terms that are nonsensical;
b. setting forth conditions that cannot be satisfied;
c. incorporating standards that are imprecise.
98. The Act’s vagueness deprives the Clinic, Dr. Eggleston and the Clinic’s staff of the due process rights guaranteed by Article I, § 12 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota.

Third Claim for Relief

(Improper Delegation)
99. The allegations of paragraphs Í through 98 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
100. House Bill 1297 constitutes an improper delegation of legislative power in violation of Article III, § 1 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota.

Fourth Claim for Relief

(Bodily Integrity)

101. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 100 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
102. House Bill 1297 violates the right to bodily integrity of women seeking medication abortions within the State of North Dakota in violation of Article I, §§ 1 and 12 of the Constitution of the State of North Dakota.

Fifth Claim for Relief

(Special Law)
103. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 102 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
104. House Bill 1297 creates a special [sic] in violation of Article IV, § 13 of the North Dakota Constitution by:
a. imposing restrictions on the off-label use of prescription medications only on women seeking medication;
b. imposing restrictions on the off-label use of prescription medications only on physicians providing medication abortions;
c. placing requirements regarding a contract with a back-up physician for emergency care only upon physicians providing medication abortions; and
d. imposing requirements for the reporting of adverse events experienced during or after provision of a drug upon only those physicians prescribing abortion-inducing drugs.

Sixth Claim for Relief

(Privileges and Immunities)
105. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 104 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
106. House Bill 1297 denies women seeking medication abortions in North Dakota equal protection of the law in violation of the privileges and immunities clause, Article 1, § 21 of the North Dakota Constitution.
107. House Bill 1297 denies physicians providing medication abortions in North Dakota equal protection of the law in violation of the privileges and *97immunities clause, Article I, § 21 of the North Dakota Constitution.

Seventh Claim for Relief

(Free Speech)
108. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 107 are incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
109. House Bill 1297 violates Article I, § 4 of the North Dakota Constitution by forcing physicians to make, and women to hear, false and misleading statements.
[¶ 175] Plaintiffs did not ask for relief under the United States Constitution. Although the parties discussed and argued federal precedent at certain times during the proceedings in this case, they did so only in the context of establishing whether there is a right to abortion under North Dakota’s constitution and whether H.B. 1297 violates that alleged state right. See Mann, 2000 ND 160, ¶ 12, 615 N.W.2d 526 (“[A]mendment of pleadings by implication may only arise when the evidence introduced is not relevant to any issue pleaded in the case.”). The plaintiffs in this case made a strategic decision to limit the issue to one of state law — a situation very different from the one we were presented with in SolarBee, in which the unpled issue was specifically argued and relied upon as a potential avenue for damages. See Solar-Bee, 2013 ND 110, ¶ 14, 833 N.W.2d 422. Here the plaintiffs do not argue that the U.S. Constitutional issue was tried by consent, the district court did not assert that it was, and the other justices cannot claim that it was.
[¶ 176] Because United States constitutional law was not tried or made an issue by the consent of the. parties under N.D.R.Civ.P. 15, we should not separately address whether H.B. 1297 constitutes an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion under United States constitutional law.
[¶ 177] The issues on appeal are those identified by the parties in their statement of issues. N.D.R.App.P. 28. In the issues specified by the parties, below, neither identified unconstitutionality under the United States Constitution as an issue.
[¶ 178] On appeal, the State identified the following issues:
I. In interpreting a constitutional provision, a court’s duty is to ascertain the intent of the people who adopted the provision. To do so, the court considers the contemporary legal practices and laws in effect when the provision was adopted. Before, when, and for decades after the North Dakota Constitution was adopted, North Dakota law prohibited abortion. Did the district court err by holding the North Dakota Constitution creates a fundamental right for a woman to have an abortion?
II. Plaintiffs did not bring a claim under the Federal Constitution, and courts refrain from deciding constitutional issues not necessary to resolve the case before them. The district court held the challenged bill violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. Did the district court err in addressing the challenged bill’s constitutionality under the Federal Constitution?
III. If a statute is capable of two constructions and one will render the statute constitutional, a court must select the constitutional interpretation. The district court rejected reasonable, constitutional interpretations of the challenged bill. Did the district court err by not selecting the constitutional interpretations?
[¶ 179] The State further emphasized:
Despite the fact MKB did not bring a claim under the Federal Constitution, *98the district court sua sponte addressed the constitutionality of HB 1297 under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
The State explained:
The State disputes that HB 1297 violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Because that issue was not raised below, it should not be decided by this Court. See City of Bismarck v. Nassif, 449 N.W.2d 789, 792 (N.D.1989) (“Before this Court will address an issue on appeal, even a constitutional issue, that issue must have been sufficiently raised in the court below.”). For that reason, the State’s brief does not address HB 1297’s constitutionality under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State concluded this argument, saying, “The district court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding an issue not raised in the Complaint or tried by consent of the parties. See N.D.R.Civ.P. 15(b)(2).”
[¶ 180] In its brief on appeal — responding to the brief that had been filed by the State — MKB identifies the following issues:
Did the Trial Court correctly construe HB 1297 to ban a safe and effective first-trimester abortion method?
Did the Trial Court correctly determine that the North Dakota Constitution protects individual rights to the same extent, or a greater extent, than the United States Constitution?
Did the Trial Court err in ruling HB 1297 unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution?
MKB’s issues do not challenge the State’s position that a U.S. Constitutional issue is not before this Court. MKB concludes its brief, “For the foregoing reasons, this Court should affirm the Trial Court’s ruling that HB 1297 is unconstitutional under the North Dakota Constitution.” The conclusion says nothing about violation of the U.S. Constitution.
[¶ 181] At oral argument, counsel for MKB responded to the Chief Justice, “I agree we haven’t pled a federal constitutional violation.” Later, when asked which of MKB’s claims for relief raised a federal constitutional question, its counsel responded, “Plaintiffs aren’t arguing that we raise any claims under the federal constitution.”
[¶ 182] Justice Crothers mischaracter-izes my position as saying “the challenge before this Court can be decided only under the North Dakota Constitution.” My position is that we properly must decide only the North Dakota Constitutional issue because that was the only issue properly before the district court and is the only issue properly before this Court. The plaintiffs could have brought their case under both the federal and state constitutions, but they did not.
[¶ 183] I acknowledge that those who are not following our clear jurisprudence apparently do not agree with me that we have a duty to do so. That this is a controversial and emotional issue does not justify improperly reaching an issue not properly before us.
[¶ 184] I would reverse the district court. I agree with the Chief Justice and Justice Crothers that the statute has not been declared unconstitutional under either constitution by a sufficient majority, as required by the North Dakota Constitution.
[¶ 185] DALE V. SANDSTROM, J.

. My concern about advisory opinions and my aversion to obiter dicta are not new-found in this case, but has been articulated in many cases I have authored for this Court or in which I have written separately. See, e.g., Trosen v. Trosen, 2014 ND 7, ¶ 32, 841 N.W.2d 687 (Crothers, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Barrett v. Gilbertson, 2013 ND 35, ¶ 30, 827 N.W.2d 831 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); City of Grafton v. Wosick, 2013 ND 74, ¶ 15, 830 N.W.2d 550; City of Mandan v. Strata Corp., 2012 ND 173, ¶¶ 7-8, 819 N.W.2d 557; Dorothy J. Pierce Family Mineral Trust v. Jorgenson, 2012 ND 100, ¶ 8, 816 N.W.2d 779; Bakke v. D & A Landscaping Co., LLC, 2012 ND 170, ¶ 19, 820 N.W.2d 357; State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75, ¶ 16, 815 N.W.2d 229 (Crothers, J., concurring specially); Interest of G.K.S., 2012 ND 17, ¶ 4, 809 N.W.2d 335; Brandvold v. Lewis & Clark Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 161, 2011 ND 185, ¶ 8, 803 N.W.2d 827; Carlson v. Carlson, 2011 ND 168, ¶ 24, 802 N.W.2d 436; In the Matter of the Estate of Vestre, 2011 ND 144, ¶ 26, 799 N.W.2d 379; State v. Johnson, 2011 ND 48, ¶ 16, 795 N.W.2d 367; Seiler v. North Dakota Dep’t of Human Servs., 2010 ND 55, ¶¶ 6-8, 780 N.W.2d 653; Saville v. Ude, 2009 ND 211, ¶ 24, 776 N.W.2d 31; White v. Altru Health System, 2008 ND 48, ¶ 19, 746 N.W.2d 173; Van Sickle v. Hallmark & Assocs., Inc., 2008 ND 12, ¶ 28, 744 N.W.2d 532; Sandberg v. American Family Ins. Co., 2006 ND 198, ¶¶ 19-21, 722 N.W.2d 359 (Crothers, J., concurring specially).