The law restricts a standard second-trimester abortion method known as “dilation and evacuation” that is used after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It was signed into law in 2018 but has so far been blocked by the courts.
The court’s 8-1 decision revives the case at hand and will make it easier for states that elect their attorneys general to defend laws when a state official from an opposing party has a different viewpoint.
The decision wasn’t a complete surprise because during oral arguments last month in a case that raised some similar legal issues, Justice Stephen Breyer accidentally gave away the result of the Kentucky case even before the opinion had been released.
Kentucky is one of several states where attorneys general are elected — giving rise to potential conflicts if the governor of a state is of a different party. Abortion providers expressed concern that it the state’s attorney general in the case at hand prevailed, the legal dispute would continue.
Complicated procedural background
Then-Attorney General Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said his office did not have the authority to defend the law and he agreed to be bound by the decision of the state’s secretary of health.
After a five-day bench trial, a district court blocked the law, and the case went to the federal appeals court. At the same time, however, an election occurred and Beshear became governor. In the same election, Republican Daniel Cameron was elected attorney general.
After an appeals court affirmed the district court’s decision, the divide between the parties opened: Beshear’s administration said it would not appeal the decision.
That prompted Cameron to intervene in the case, attempting to revive the dispute, only to lose when the federal appeals court said his request came too late. The lower court emphasized that the office of the attorney general had already agreed to step out of the case, and now it was too late to try to step back in.
Cameron appealed to the Supreme Court. Kentucky’s Principal Deputy Solicitor General Matthew Kuhn told the justices that as a matter of Kentucky law, Cameron has the final say on whether to accept a decision that enjoined a state law, and that even under the previous attorney general, the office had preserved the ability of the attorney general to “participate in any appeal.”
He said Cameron “had the ability to protect Kentucky’s interests when it became unrepresented” and that the decision to defend the law represented a “hand off” from one state official to another.
In court, justices on both sides of the political spectrum questioned the lower court’s decision, and seemed inclined to allow the case to continue.
Alexa Kolbi-Molinas, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed that the office of attorney general had already spoken on the law during an earlier phase of the proceedings and that Cameron stands in the “shoes of his predecessor.”
“Intervention is not a revolving door,” she said, and added that the lower court did not abuse its discretion by holding that Cameron’s attempt to get into the case came too late.
Opponents of the law say that the Supreme Court’s decision will be limited to whether the appeals court was correct to block Cameron from reviving the dispute. But because the issue touches on abortion, they feared a loss could lead to Kentuckians losing access to abortion if Cameron were ultimately to prevail.
This story has been updated with additional details Thursday.
CNN’s Devan Cole contributed to this report.