Background
In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3, a constitutional amendment codifying a right to reproductive freedom. Sixteen plaintiffs, including a pro-life nonprofit and several individuals, sued to enjoin the enforcement of this amendment, alleging it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, and five plaintiffs appealed.
The court’s reasoning
The Sixth Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo, accepting the plaintiffs’ well-pleaded allegations as true. To establish standing, plaintiffs must show an injury in fact, traceability to the defendant’s actions, and redressability by the requested relief. The court found the plaintiffs failed to plead facts supporting traceability and redressability. Allegations that the Governor and Attorney General generally enforce state laws were insufficient without specific allegations of actions taken or threatened against the plaintiffs. Similarly, the Secretary of State’s role in ballot procedures did not establish a link to the alleged injuries. The court noted that enjoining defendants who lack specific enforcement authority over the challenged law would not redress the plaintiffs’ injuries.
Plaintiffs needed to plead more.
Right to Life of Mich., et al. v. Whitmer, et al., No. 25-1973 (6th Cir. May 26, 2026)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that plaintiffs challenging state laws must allege specific enforcement actions by named officials to establish standing, preventing lawsuits based on general enforcement authority.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download