Alabama Supreme Court will not rehear cases that led to landmark IVF ruling (2024)

MONTGOMERY, Ala. —

The Alabama State Supreme Court has refused to rehear the two cases that led to a near state-wide pause on IVF services earlier this year, as well as a nationwide debate on the status of embryos as unborn children.

On Friday, the Court overruled the applications for the rehearing of two wrongful death cases filed by families whose embryos were destroyed in an accident at a clinic in Mobile.

All but two justices concurred with the decision to overrule, offering no opinion on the matter.

Justices Greg Cook and Will Sellers dissented from the decision, the latter offering a lengthy statement in which he touched on the "unintended consequences" of the Court's initial decision on the status of embryos:

"One of the cardinal rules of jurisprudence is that judicial decisions should follow reason and logic so that no one is ever truly surprised by them. Indeed, an important role of the judicial branch is to ensure that the rules governing society create stability and certainty that comport with the English concept of "the law of the land," i.e., to reflect the common experience, tradition, and culture of citizens over the philosophical, creative, and speculative.

"As a court, we labor in anonymity, far away from the tensions experienced by other branches of government. This case has removed us from any notion of ivory-tower isolation and has subjected us to the scrutiny of world opinion, thrusting us into a public discussion that was as unwarranted as it was unanticipated. While many of our opinions have unintended consequences, oftentimes such consequences nevertheless are foreseeable because our decisions impact others who, although they were not parties to the case, were generally aware of the potential repercussions of a reasonable decision. In this case, our decision was a surprise, if not a shock, to our citizens. The majority opinion on original submission had significant and sweeping implications for individuals who were entirely unassociated with the parties in the case. Many of those individuals had no reason to believe that a legal and routine medical procedure would be delayed, much less denied, as a result of this Court's opinion.

"Because those individuals never had an opportunity to submit briefs in this case to explain their positions and the law supporting them, they now have a new regime that has been forced upon them for which they had neither input, nor redress, nor a hearing. The majority opinion on original submission also addressed issues and arguments that were never raised in the parties' initial briefs and never argued by the parties. It is for these reasons that I would have granted the request to conduct oral argument on the applications for rehearing, including providing the various amici curiae an opportunity to voice their concerns, to explain the legal bases of their positions, and to highlight the various loose ends left dangling by this Court's opinion.

"In light of the foregoing, and consistent with my special writing on original submission, I respectfully dissent from the denial of the applications for rehearing, especially the denial of oral argument on rehearing."

Alabama lawmakers racing to restart in vitro fertilization services in the state gave final approval in March to legislation shielding providers from the initial court ruling.

The bill, SB-159, was then delivered to Gov. Kay Ivey's desk and swiftly signed into law.