{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019","type":"case","case_name_short":"Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky","case_name_full":"Box, Commissioner, Indiana Department of Health, et al. v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, Inc., et al.","citation":"587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019)","docket_number":"18-483","status":"Good law","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2019-05-28","vote":"Per curiam (7-2 on fetal remains); denied cert on selective abortion provision","question_presented":"(1) Whether Indiana's law requiring the humane disposal of fetal remains passes rational-basis review. (2) Whether Indiana may prohibit abortions sought solely because of the fetus's sex, race, or disability.","holding":"(1) Indiana's fetal remains disposal law is constitutional under rational-basis review. (2) The Court declined to review the selective-abortion provision, noting the Seventh Circuit was the only appeals court to have addressed the issue.","reasoning_summary":"The per curiam noted that the Court had already recognized a state's 'legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains' (Akron v. Akron Center, 1983), and that the Indiana law was rationally related to that interest even if not 'perfectly tailored.' The plaintiffs had not argued the law imposed an undue burden. On the selective-abortion question, the Court followed its ordinary practice of allowing further percolation in lower courts.","practical_effect":"The fetal-remains provision took effect. The selective-abortion (sex/race/disability) provision remained enjoined pending further lower court development. Thomas's concurrence became a significant vehicle for movement discourse on eugenics.","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Per curiam","summary":"(1) Indiana's fetal remains disposal law is constitutional under rational-basis review. (2) The Court declined to review the selective-abortion provision, noting the Seventh Circuit was the only appeals court to have addressed the issue."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Thomas, J.","summary":"Wrote a lengthy 20-page concurrence arguing that anti-eugenic abortion restrictions serve compelling state interests and criticizing Planned Parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger for eugenic views. Signaled that the Court must eventually address the 'scope' of the abortion right."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Ginsburg, J.","summary":"Dissented from application of rational-basis review to the fetal remains provision."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"This Court has already acknowledged that a State has a 'legitimate interest in proper disposal of fetal remains.' The only remaining question, then, is whether Indiana's law is rationally related to the State's interest in proper disposal of fetal remains. We conclude that it is, even if it is not perfectly tailored to that end.","speaker":"Per curiam","location":"slip op. at 3"},{"quote":"Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th-century eugenics movement.","speaker":"Thomas, J. (concurring)","location":"concurrence at 1"},{"quote":"Although the Court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to an abortion, this Court is duty-bound to address its scope.","speaker":"Thomas, J. (concurring)","location":"concurrence at 20"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Abolitionists prominently cite Thomas's concurrence, particularly its discussion of Sanger and eugenics. Note: careful abolitionists distinguish between well-documented Sanger eugenic writings and misattributed or fabricated quotations. The 'exterminate the Negro population' letter is often misused; see the report on fabricated Sanger quotes.","mainstream_prolife":"NRLC, SBA Pro-Life America, and other groups celebrated the fetal-remains ruling and Thomas's eugenics concurrence.","prochoice":"Reproductive rights advocates criticized Thomas's concurrence as historically misleading and warned that anti-eugenic framings could be used to justify sweeping abortion restrictions."},"significance":{"overall":4,"legal_precedential_weight":3,"practical_impact_on_access":3,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":7,"enduring_relevance_2026":5,"rationale":"The per curiam ruling was narrow, but Thomas's concurrence became a widely cited touchstone for pro-life and abolitionist arguments about eugenics."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf","href":"https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-483_3d9g.pdf"}],"secondary":[{"name":"constitutionallawreporter.com/2019/06/06/box-v-pl…","href":"https://constitutionallawreporter.com/2019/06/06/box-v-planned-parenthood-2019/"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health (1983)","Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)"],"cited_by_later":["Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)"]},"notes":"Thomas's Sanger discussion in the concurrence is heavily used in abolitionist literature; ministries citing it should be careful to use only verified Sanger quotations (e.g., 'human weeds,' 1938 KKK auxiliary address) and avoid fabricated ones.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.json"}}