The Missouri Supreme Court effectively halted all state abortions this week, months after voters chose to enact a constitutional amendment that would grant the state’s reproductive rights.
The lawsuit includes restrictions imposed on abortion care before the amendment passed and even before the US Supreme Court was held. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Agency That there was no federal constitutional right to abortion. Missouri was one of many states that had a book trigger law to ban almost all abortions if the Supreme Court was overturned. Roev. Wade. That strict ban came into effect after 2022 dobbs Decision, end of access to state procedures.
However, in November 2024, voters approved Amendment 3. This is a voting bill that declares that the state cannot “deny or infringe on its fundamental right to reproductive freedom.” Within days of the passage of the amendment, a group of plaintiffs, including planned parent-child relationships, challenged the constitutionality of many of the remaining restrictions in the state. These included the requirement that clinics grant privileges at least 15 minutes away at the hospital, comply with standards administering outpatient surgery centers, and allow pelvic testing to be performed prior to all procedures and wait 72 hours for patients to perform surgery.
These restrictions, known as the “targeting regulations for abortion providers” or the TRAP Act, were passed when the federal constitution still protected the right to abortion. Such laws are used to make abortion difficult to provide or access, even if the procedures are legal.
In Missouri, they worked. Before regulations came into effect in 2018, the state had 26 clinics. After that, only one person managed to stay open.
A trial on the constitutionality of Missouri abortion restrictions is scheduled for 2026, but plaintiffs have tentatively sought to block enforcement. The state acknowledged that the absolute ban was inconsistent with Amendment 3, but argued that the regulations did not violate the new amendment. The state argued that the law made women safer without preventing abortion. State Attorney General Andrew Bailey further argued that the plaintiffs could not show that even if patients were to take drugs that would induce abortion inducing medications by mail or that abortion clinics were closed, they could irreparably show that it was one of the injunction requirements they were sought. At the time, only three clinics resumed offering surgical abortions, but only until the 13th week of pregnancy.
In two separate rulings late last year and earlier this year, state judge Jerri J. Zhang sided with the plaintiffs and obstructed many restrictions. The regulations did not provide persuasive interest or use the least restrictive measures to achieve Congressional goals, she said. Amendment 3 itself stated that benefits that hindered reproductive freedom are only appealing as persuasive, she explained that “it is for a limited purpose and has limited effectiveness in improving or maintaining health.” Additionally, she determined that some of the requirements that are likely to have violated Pregnancy 3 are likely to violate Amendment 3, as other health services regulate it in ways that are not the case.
Missouri subsequently allowed the state to continue enforce restrictions prior to the January 2026 trial, a special order called Mandamas warrants from the state Supreme Court. This week, the High Court granted the state’s request and deduced that Zhang had applied the wrong criteria to assess whether or not the statute should be blocked.
Historically, Missouri courts have applied the same criteria to injunctions adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Dataphase Systemsv. CL system – And so did Zhang. However, the Missouri Supreme Court noted that the 8th Circuit would be called in an abortion case. Planned Parenthoodv. Roundswhich adopted stricter standards. Under Data Face Standards, the plaintiff must only show that she has a “fair chance” that she is winning. in contrast, round Plaintiffs seeking to ban standard, state law, must show that she is likely to win merit. The state Supreme Court held that Zhang’s order was incorrect. round.
The Supreme Court did not suggest how the standards should be applied. The nation will argue that Chang should reach different outcomes under the new standards. The plaintiff would not believe that the content of the judge’s judgment should not change significantly under different rules of the interim injunction.
Chan can read the court’s decision as a signal that the Missouri Supreme Court believes the restrictions should be convened under Amendment 3. In the meantime, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Missouri people to get an abortion. The remaining Missouri clinics have cancelled all unresolved abortion appointments and advised patients to travel out of state for out-of-state trips after a state Supreme Court decision was made.
The next injunction certainly isn’t the end of the matter. If restrictions are permanently blocked after the January trial, the state is sure to appeal. A simple Supreme Court order doesn’t speak much about how it approaches the issue.
What is clear, however, is that simply passing constitutional amendments protecting reproductive rights is not sufficient to guarantee access to abortion.
This reality is clear outside of Missouri. Earlier this month, doctors filed a lawsuit seeking to block Arizona’s abortion restrictions. There, voters enacted a constitutional amendment in 2024 that established the fundamental rights of abortion before abortion. Due to genetic abnormalities in the fetus. The state’s 15-week ban was permanently banned last month for violating an abortion rights amendment.
Meanwhile, the Missouri Legislature has already paved the way for a new voting measure that criminalizes almost all abortions, except for certain medical emergencies, fatal fetal abnormalities, and rape and incest that are involved in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. In particular, the voting measure does not explain its functional ban on abortion, but instead focuses on exceptions that allow for a very narrow category of abortion.
But no matter what the voters are, many will remain in the hands of the state Supreme Court. Justice in many states, including Missouri and Arizona, faces regular retention elections. These elections are another way voters can influence the future of their reproductive rights.
Mary Ziegler is Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis School of Law. Her new book, Personality: A new civil war over reproductionnow available.
Proposed quote, Mary Ziegler, Despite constitutional reforms, abortions are still out of reach in Missourisᴛᴛᴇcᴏᴜʀᴛrᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (May 30, 2025), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/despite-constitution-amandment- reactill-out-reach-missouri