STATE OF GEORGIA v. SISTERSONG WOMEN OF COLOR REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE COLLECTIVE

Reproductive rights groups sued the State of Georgia in Fulton County Superior Court, arguing that a 2019 law known as the LIFE Act, which bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected and requires doctors to report why any later abortion was allowed, was unconstitutional. The trial judge agreed on a narrow ground: because the law conflicted with Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that protected abortion rights at the time the law was passed in 2019, the judge ruled the law was 'void from the beginning' and could never take effect, even after the U.S. Supreme Court later overturned Roe and Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The State appealed. The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed, holding that a law cannot be void from the start based on U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have since been overturned, because the Constitution's meaning does not change just because judicial interpretation of it changes. The case now goes back to the trial court to decide separate claims that the law violates Georgia's own constitution.

A statute cannot be declared void from its enactment based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have since been overruled, because the Constitution's meaning is fixed and does not change when the Court's interpretation of it changes; Georgia courts must apply the U.S. Supreme Court's current controlling interpretation, which is Dobbs, not the overruled Roe and Casey.

The ruling means Georgia's six-week abortion ban stays in effect while the case continues, directly affecting pregnant Georgians seeking abortions, doctors who must comply with reporting rules, and future litigation testing whether the ban violates the Georgia Constitution's privacy and equal-protection guarantees.

Reversed and remanded

1. The court explained that Georgia's Judicial Review Clause requires courts to void any law that conflicts with the U.S. or Georgia Constitution, and that a law violating the Constitution in effect when it was passed is traditionally called 'void ab initio,' meaning void from the start.
2. It reasoned that a written constitution's meaning is fixed when the people ratify it and does not change unless a formal amendment is adopted; the U.S. Supreme Court interprets that fixed meaning but is not the source of it and cannot amend it through a ruling.
3. Applying that principle, the court found that because the text of the U.S. Constitution has not changed since 2019, and Dobbs simply corrected the Court's prior interpretation rather than altering the Constitution itself, the LIFE Act's constitutionality must be judged under Dobbs, the Supreme Court's current controlling interpretation, not under the overruled Roe and Casey.
4. The court reviewed and rejected the trial court's and dissent's reliance on Adams v. Adams, a 1982 case about Georgia's year's-support statute, finding that case did not establish a rule requiring courts to freeze constitutional analysis using precedent from the enactment date.
5. Because Dobbs controls and the parties agreed the LIFE Act complies with Dobbs, the court concluded the law did not violate the U.S. Constitution when enacted in 2019 and therefore was never void ab initio.

• Georgia abortion ban
• LIFE Act
• void ab initio doctrine
• Dobbs v. Jackson
• heartbeat law