Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu IN THE SUPREME COURT OF RHODE ISLAND No. SU-2020-0066-A MICHAEL BENSON, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS V. GINA M. RAIMONDO, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES On Appeal from a Judgment Entered in the Superior Court, Providence County No. PC-2019-6761 (DARIGAN, J.) BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE THE THOMAS MORE SOCIETY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS Raymond A. Marcaccio, Esquire (#3569) OLIVERIO & MARCACCIO LLP 30 Romano Vineyard Way, Suite 109 North Kingstown, RI 02852 (401) 861-2900 (401) 861-2922 Fax [email protected] Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................................................................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ..........................................................................1 I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS...........................1 II. ERRORS CLAIMED ......................................................................................4 A. Plaintiff Voters Have Standing to Bring This Action...........................4 B. Baby Roe and Baby Mary Doe Have Standing...................................10 1. Baby Mary Doe and Baby Roe Have Been Injured in the Revocation of Their Legal Interest in the Pre-Roe Abortion Law and in the Fetal Homicide (Quick Child) Laws........................11 2. Baby Mary Doe’s and Baby Roe’s Status in the Abortion Context of Roe v. Wade Does Not Remove Their Status as Persons in this Non-Roe Case ..................................................15 C. The Court Should Find Standing Based on the Substantial Public Interests this Case Presents .................................................................16 III. CONCLUSION..............................................................................................18 CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT AND COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 18(B) ........................................................................................................................19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................19 i Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu TABLE OF AUTHORITIES United States Supreme Court Decisions Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962).......................................................................6, 8 Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) ...........................................................16 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, -- S. Ct. --, 2021 WL 1951792 (May 17, 2021)......................................................................................................12 Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973).................................................................. 12, 13 Fed. Election Comm'n v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) .............................................6, 7 Gill v. Whitford, 138 S.Ct. 1916 (2018)............................................................ 6, 8, 9 Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) ................................................................7, 8 Pennsylvania v. Finley, 481 U.S. 551 (1987) ..........................................................16 Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964)..................................................................6, 8 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).............................................................. 12, 14, 15 Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) ...........................................................................7 Sinkfield v. Kelley, 531 U.S. 28 (2000)......................................................................7 Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) ..........................................................5 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) ...............................................................16 Other Federal Courts Bruggeman v. Blagojevich, 324 F.3d 906 (7th Cir. 2003).........................................9 Davis v. Guam, 785 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 2015) .........................................................6 Delew v. Wagner, 143 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir.1998).....................................................16 Doe v. Israel, 482 F.2d 156 (1st Cir. 1973)...................................................... 12, 13 ii Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020)..................9 Harrison v. Kernan, 971 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2020)..................................................6 State Court Decisions Rhode Island Supreme Court Burns v. Sundlun, 617 A.2d 114 (R.I. 1992) ................................................... passim Key v. Brown University, 163 A.3d 1162 (R.I. 2017) ...............................................5 N & M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick, 964 A.2d 1141 (R.I. 2009)...5, 9 Sennott v. Hawksley, 103 R.I. 730, A.2d 286 (1968) ..............................................16 Rhode Island Superior Court Harrop v. R.I. Div. of Lotteries, 2019 R.I.Super LEXIS 130, *5-*6.........................9 Statutes R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-30-2...........................................................................................15 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-3-1...........................................................................................11 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-3-4.......................................................................................2, 10 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-23-5................................................................................. passim R.I. Gen. Laws, § 23-4.13-1.......................................................................................1 iii Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE Amicus Curiae, the Thomas More Society (“TMS”), is a national, non- profit, public interest law firm dedicated to defending life, from conception to natural death, the family, and First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and religious liberty. TMS nationally seeks to safeguard and foster support for these causes by pro bono advocacy for their preservation and protection in state and federal trial and appellate courts. Consistent with its mission, the Thomas More Society submits this brief in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. I. STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS This appeal challenges the Rhode Island Reproductive Privacy Act, R.I. Gen. Laws, § 23-4.13-1 et seq. (“RPA”), passed by the Rhode Island General Assembly and signed by the Governor in 2019. The First Amended Complaint (Plaintiffs-Appellants’ App. (“APP.”) 069-120) asserts that the RPA unlawfully amended the Rhode Island Constitution by “grant[ing]”, “secur[ing]” and “funding” a “right relating to abortion”, a right that Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution disavowed absent amendment by a majority vote of the entire electorate as per Article I, Section 1 and Article XIV of the Constitution. No such vote was held. The First Amended Complaint also asserts that the Rhode Island General Assembly has no “residual” authority to create a right of abortion outside of a constitutional amendment inasmuch as Article VI, Section 10 repealed any 1 Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu plenary or residual legislative powers. (APP. 099 (¶¶109-114); 105 (¶140); 109 (¶164); 112-113 (¶184); 116 (¶¶205-206)). Plaintiffs, Michael Benson, Nichole Leigh Rowley, and Jane Doe (“Plaintiff voters”), are eligible Rhode Island voters who would have voted against a constitutional amendment recognizing the right of abortion had it been put to the vote of the electorate. (APP. 079; 082 - 084, 113 (¶¶185-187)). These Plaintiff voters seek a declaratory judgment that they were illegally deprived of their right to vote on the alleged constitutional amendment. (APP. 105 (¶139), 109 (¶163), 112 (¶183); 115-116 (¶¶197, 200, 203)). Plaintiff Baby Roe, a pre-viable 15-week old fetus, alleges, through her mother Plaintiff Rowley, that under Rhode Island General Laws §11-3-4, she had certain legal rights of a “person”, which were “immediately, irrevocably, and permanently” removed when the RPA was passed. She alleges that this action violated her rights of due process and equal protection under the Rhode Island Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. (APP. 0086-0088, esp. ¶¶40-41; 114, Count V). Plaintiff Baby Mary Doe, a post-viable 34-week old fetus, through her mother Plaintiff Jane Doe, makes the same allegations as Plaintiff Baby Roe, and in addition alleges that she is a “quick child” as defined in R.I. Gen. Laws §11-23- 5. Passage of the RPA removed her legal rights and protected status as a “quick 2 Case Number: SU-2020-0066-A Filed in Supreme Court Submitted: 7/15/2021 3:29 PM Envelope: 3193930 Reviewer: Justin Coutu child” violating her rights of due process and equal protection under the Rhode Island Constitution and the Constitution of the United States. (APP. 088-091, esp. ¶¶58-63; 114, Count V). Plaintiff Catholics For Life, Inc., under the fictitious name “Servants of Christ for Life” (“SOCL”), alleges that its purpose is to advocate for, represent, and support the legal rights of those unborn, specifically, Baby Roe