Federal judge grants injunction to anti-abortion groups in challenge to Michigan employment law

A federal district court judge issued a preliminary injunction to two Michigan anti-abortion organizations in their challenge to a state employment law that would require them to recruit and hire candidates with beliefs on abortion that do not align with the groups, as well as requiring them to cover abortion care in employee pregnancy benefits plans. 

The lawsuit, filed by Right to Life of Michigan and the Pregnancy Resource Center in Grand Rapids against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and members of the Civil Rights Commission, alleges that the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act violates the first amendment protections of these groups by imposing hiring practices on them that go directly against the missions of the organizations. 

Nessel and the other defendants argued that, as summarized in Friday’s opinion, “Plaintiffs face no realistic enforcement threat for a variety of reasons.”

But Judge Robert J. Jonker, a George W. Bush appointee, disagreed, writing, “The recent statutory changes do, however, at least arguably cover Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected conduct.” Jonker also denied the motions from Nessel and from the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and Michigan Civil Rights Commission to dismiss the suit altogether. 

He added that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their suit, writing, “Regardless of the Michigan Supreme Court’s interpretation of ELCRA, Plaintiffs are likely to receive the relief they sought from this litigation—the confidence that the 2023 amendments cannot bar Plaintiffs’ intended conduct.”

Amber Roseboom, the President of Right to Life of Michigan, called the decision a “welcome reprieve” in a statement shared with the Michigan Advance. 

“Any attempt by state officials to force organizations like Right to Life of Michigan to employ staff who do not agree with our fundamental mission is a wild misuse of power and defies common sense,” Roseboom continued. “Seeking to undermine organizations that offer life-saving choices is counterintuitive. For choice to truly exist, every woman must have the opportunity to make a choice for life if she would like to do so.” 

The opinion also directs the Michigan Supreme Court to determine how the law applies to the organizations before the case continues in federal court. 

A spokesperson for Nessel’s office said that while they are still reviewing the opinion, they “have significant concerns with Friday’s opinion and will present those concerns in future proceedings.”

The injunction specifically prohibits the state from enforcing laws that would prevent the groups from declining to recruit, hire, employ, or retain individuals who have had an abortion, advocate for abortion, or express pro-choice viewpoints for currently open positions, and from posting these preferences and intentions on its website and other job search sites. 

It also similarly allows the Pregnancy Resource Center to decline to recruit or accept volunteers who do not abide by the center’s positions, and allows both organizations to provide insurance to employees that excludes coverage for elective abortions. 

“The government can’t force pro-life organizations to sabotage their own beliefs by requiring them to employ staff who endorse abortion—a decision that harms women and ends innocent lives,” said Bryan Neihart, a senior counsel for the Christian conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued before the court on behalf of the pro-life groups, in a statement following the decision. “The First Amendment protects the right of these organizations to hire employees who can carry out and share the message of hope and joy associated with the gift of life. For these pro-life groups, the messenger matters.”

This is not the only lawsuit recently filed by Right to Life of Michigan against the current administration — a federal circuit court judge affirmed in May a district court’s dismissal of a lawsuit from the organization seeking to overturn the state’s Proposal 3, a ballot initiative in 2022 that enshrined reproductive freedoms, including the right to an abortion, in the Michigan Constitution.