Tennessee’s Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti Wednesday filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit by State Representative Aftyn Behn (D-Nashville), Nashville abortion activist and attorney Rachel Welty, and others to stop a bill banning the practice of abortion trafficking from taking effect.
HB 1895, introduced by State Representative Jason Zachary (R-Knoxville) and signed into law by Gov. Bill Lee (R) in May, bans minors seeking an abortion to be transported across state lines by people unrelated to them to obtain an abortion.
It was challenged in court by Behn and Welty in June.
Skrmetti filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the plaintiffs have no legal leg to stand on. The suit was filed not only against the state but also against several district attorneys general.
“Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not state a viable claim to relief because it fails under the applicable law and runs headlong into well-settled jurisdictional bars,” the motion says. “Because no amount of repleading could cure these legal deficiencies, the Court should dismiss this suit as a matter of law.”
Skrmetti referred to the plaintiffs’ claim that the abortion trafficking law violates the 14th Amendment because it is “unconstitutionally vague.”
“Plaintiffs zero in on the Act’s use of the term ‘recruits,’ suggesting that its inclusion poses constitutional vagueness problems. That term, they say, is ‘not defined’ in the Act and is susceptible to a wide range of potential meanings,'” says the complaint. “Plaintiffs also complain that the Defendant District Attorneys General declined to respond to their ‘specific request to clarify the meaning of the word …and define its scope.’ And “based on both the undefined nature of the word . . . and the Defendants’ refusal to clarify their own interpretation of [it],” they conclude, the Act is unconstitutionally vague.”
But, Skrmetti argues, the Due Process Clause’s “void for vagueness” doctrine says only that a “person of ordinary intelligence” has “a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited” by the law and that, in this case, regular people are able to understand what is being outlawed.
Skrmetti also rebuffed complaints that the law is unconstitutionally overbroad and burdens constitutionally protected speech.
The latter claim stems from the plaintiff’s argument that the abortion trafficking law would legally prevent abortion advocacy.
“But … the law’s text—properly interpreted—does not prohibit pure speech or advocacy about abortion at all,” the motion says. “It prohibits only affirmative conduct intended to convince a minor to cross state lines, without parental consent, to obtain an abortion that Tennessee law prohibits, or transporting or harboring a minor for that purpose.They have not come close to demonstrating an intent to engage in that sort of conduct.”
Skrmetti said in the motion that the defendants, who were all sued in professional capacities, have sovereign immunity in the case.
“This, too, requires dismissal,” the motion says.
– – –
Pete D’Abrosca is a reporter at The Tennessee Star and The Star News Network. Follow Pete on X/Twitter.
