Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc.
Headline: Indiana’s new rules for handling fetal remains are upheld, while the Court declines to decide whether providers may be banned from sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions, leaving that question unresolved.
Holding: The Court reversed the Seventh Circuit and upheld Indiana’s fetal‑remains disposal rules as rationally related to a legitimate state interest, and it declined to decide the separate question about selective‑abortion bans.
- Allows Indiana to enforce new fetal‑remains disposal rules for abortion providers.
- Means providers cannot classify fetal remains as infectious waste for incineration.
- Leaves legality of bans on sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions undecided.
Summary
Background
Indiana passed two new abortion-related laws: one changing how abortion providers must dispose of fetal remains and another banning a provider from knowingly performing abortions based solely on the fetus’s sex, race, or disability. Planned Parenthood sued to block both laws, and lower courts enjoined them. The parties litigated the disposal rule mainly under ordinary "rational basis" review, while the selective-abortion ban raised a broader constitutional question about whether such abortions must be allowed.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether Indiana’s disposal law is reasonably related to a legitimate state interest in the proper and respectful handling of fetal remains. Relying on that deferential standard, the Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, concluded the State’s interest is legitimate, and upheld the disposal rules even if they are not perfectly tailored. As to the separate ban on sex-, race-, or disability-selective abortions, the Court declined to take that question now and denied review so the issue can percolate in other appeals.
Real world impact
Practically, Indiana may enforce its new disposal requirements for abortion providers, including limits on classifying fetal remains as infectious waste and allowing certain cremation rules, while women retain their existing statutory right to choose final disposition. The constitutionality of bans on selective abortions remains an open question and could be addressed in future cases from other courts.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas wrote separately endorsing the State’s interest and urging future review of selective-abortion bans, emphasizing concerns about eugenics; Justice Ginsburg would have denied review overall, saying closer scrutiny could apply to the disposal rule.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?