Judge Allows Suit Over Alabama Abortion Travel To Go Forward
Abortion rights groups have sued Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall after he said he would prosecute anyone who facilitates legal out-of-state abortions.

A federal judge has allowed a lawsuit against Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall to go forward. The decision comes after Marshall filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that several abortion rights groups lacked standing to sue him for threatening to prosecute anyone who helps an Alabama woman obtain an out-of-state abortion.
On Monday, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson declined to dismiss the case, ruling that the abortion rights group had standing and that Marshall's stated plan to prosecute those who aid in abortions likely violated several key Constitutional rights.
"Alabama can no more restrict people from going to, say, California to engage in what is lawful there than California can restrict people from coming to Alabama to do what is lawful here," U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson wrote. "Therefore, the plaintiffs here correctly contend that the Attorney General cannot constitutionally prosecute people for acts taken within the State meant to facilitate lawful out-of-state conduct, including obtaining an abortion."
The case, which combines several lawsuits from different abortion rights groups, came after Marshall made multiple statements in July 2022 threatening to prosecute those who helped facilitate a legal out-of-state abortion under Alabama's anti-conspiracy law.
One of the suits, filed last year by the Yellowhammer Fund, an Alabama abortion fund, states that Mashall "has chilled the First Amendment rights of helpers…and sought to apply Alabama's laws extraterritorially to prevent aid to pregnant Alabamians seeking to exercise their federal constitutional rights to travel out of Alabama and access lawful abortion care in other states."
Last August, Marshall filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the abortion rights groups didn't have standing, and that even if they did have standing "the lawfulness of abortions in other States does not render his threatened prosecutions unconstitutional," according to Monday's decision.
However, Thompson didn't buy it. While he sided with Marshall on one count—dismissing a claim from the Yellowhammer fund that Thompson says the group didn't substantiate—he roundly rejected the idea that Alabama could punish an individual or organization for facilitating legal out-of-state conduct.
"The right to travel has deep historical roots, and it has long encompassed more than the mere movement of persons across borders," Thompson wrote. "Indeed, as the court will explain, travel has consistently been protected precisely so that people would be free to engage in lawful conduct while traveling."
Thompson continued, concluding that the "Attorney General cannot constitutionally prosecute people for acts taken within the State meant to facilitate lawful out of state conduct, including obtaining an abortion," adding that Marshall's threats, "if carried out, would violate the right to travel and the freedom of speech."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How about guns or prostitution across state borders?
Usually covered by Federal law
Guns across state lines is covered by federal law? I can drive from Michigan to California with all my guns and will be covered by the same laws the whole time? Huh.
18 U.S. Code § 926A - Interstate transportation of firearms
Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.
Just traveling through most metro areas with non reduced capacity magazines can get you into legal trouble.
FYI, gov’na shrike is an ignorant statist.
Note that the law cited by Brain Man supported my observation about "being covered by Federal law", This suggests that R Mac is the ignorant one.
Nor am I a statist. R Mac, however, assuredly is, contingent on the right person, i.e., Trump, heads the state.
Those are things progs hate so restrictions there are moral and good but restrictions on murder out of state are bad.
Even if anyone were committing murder, they'd be charged in the state where they did it.
Good idea, instead of using the criminalization of those things as a reason to criminalize something else why not do it the other direction and use the precedents to change the bad laws.
^Exactly. Excuses for 'more' government or 'less'. What's the goal here?
It always depresses me when someone sees someone else wearing fewer chains and yells "Put more chains on that guy!" instead of asking "Why am I wearing so many chains? How about I take a few off?" It's extra depressing when alleged libertarians do it.
Alledged is right. They are conservatives who want us to drop the end the drug war plank. They aren't worth the compromise because when it comes down to it they will still vote Republican.
If you travel to Nevada and patronize legal prostitutes Alabama authorities can't prosecute you for that either.
If you travel with the person from your state to Nevada and then pay them in Nevada for sex. I think federal sex trafficking laws could kick in. Even if the other person was a consenting adult.
Mann Act, or git thet uppity Jack Johnson Law.
According to Manny Steward, who knew a thing or two about boxing history, Jack Johnson was one of the biggest pimps in the US and the conviction was not the grave injustice it was popularly supposed to be,
Give them a few years, they'll work on prosecuting you for that too.
This is blatantly unconstitutional. Why are Republicans turning into Democrats, criminalizing things they object to and controlling every personal decision we make?
Sin. It's all about sin. A woman sinned by having sex out of wedlock and thus must be punished by forcing her to fuck up a child's life.
I hope you really believe that, because then it would be easy to call you a retard.
It's not about saving lives. It's about punishing the woman for her choices.
Because they have taken over the Democrats agenda.
Historically the Pro-Life movement was launched by Catholic Democrats and Republicans wrote Roe v Wade. Today somehow the Republicans decided to take-over the lefts power-mad agenda, kill their own ruling and act like power-mad religious freaks (being a complete mirror of the left).
Now do post-natal murder.
Because the Overton window has shifted so far to the left that Libertarians are closer to 90’s Republicans, 90’s Republicans are early 2000’s Democrats and Democrats are off the reservation?
They're not turning into Democrats - they also like criminalising the things they object to (cf. DeSantis and lab meat) and are just bigger hypocrites about it.
The Alabammy slavocracy has The Constitution on its side, specifically the part so distasteful to journalists of color during Reconstruction.
"Article Four, Section Two, clause 3. No person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labor, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due."
Tiddy Rosenfelt's "Race Suicide" letters urging criminal charges against any woman who resists compulsory reproduction, as "a criminal against the race..." reasserted this position on 18OCT1902. Thim Ray-publicans and Mises Caucasians knew where best to invest Nazi tooth-chiselings to undermine an' pervert th' blessin's iv liberty.
So, yea - despite the fact that crossing state lines to flout the law for the purpose of intentionally killing tiny humans is thoroughly abhorrent - this is still probably unconstitutional.
A better (and more hilarious) idea might be to rewrite their residency requirements in such a way that if it's discovered that a Alabama resident fled the State for the express purpose of breaking this law, to revoke their residency and permanently ban them from owning/leasing real property in the State. They can contest it, but to do so they'd have to provide a HIPAA Auth to subpoena their records during the suspected time-frame. If it turns out they really did flee the state to kill a tiny human, give them 30 days to sell/relocate their property - or it gets put up for public auction, the proceeds of which settle any outstanding tax burden to the State and then are refunded to the former citizen.
And for added fun - such a designation automatically triggers a job abandonment protection for their employer, to keep the extremely willful tiny human killer from collecting unemployment.
The whole idea would be debated in the Court, to be sure - but it's a novel approach and it's theoretically defensible.
Fetuses are not tiny humans - they're not fully human yet.
I checked their DNA. It's human.
Shouldn't the AG, as a conservative, be encouraging leftists to have more abortions, thereby cleaning the gene pool and reducing the supply of leftists in the future? When your enemy is making a mistake, don't interrupt him/her.
If they started executing their 10yr olds on the altar of environmentalism and LGBT, would you regard it the same way?
Same thing - preventing brainwashed kids from reaching maturity and advocating brainwashed ideas and breeding another brainwashed generation. Why difference does it make if he's in utero or in grade school?
For that matter, would you support it if conservatives started executing their kids? Or maybe just go straight to the source and off their parents before they can even breed? (Because, on the fringe right, they're considering precisely that.)
Nice try Napoleon.
They want the woman punished. The kid is just a pawn.
Punished for what?