Reproductive Freedom on the Docket

State v. Anderson and State v. Chapman (amicus)

Read our October 17, 2019 amicus brief in support of Mr. Anderson. 

Read our October 17, 2019 amicus brief in support of Mr. Chapman. 

Status:
Active
Case Dates:
Thursday, 17 October, 2019 - ongoing
Facts:

London Chapman and Lee Anderson are both fathers who pled guilty to felony non-payment of child support in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. Each was ordered to pay restitution and back child support in the amounts of approximately $200,000 and $50,000 respectively. Each was sentenced to 5 years’ probation, subject to the condition that each man:

“[M]ake all reasonable efforts to avoid impregnating a woman during the community control period or until such time that [he] can prove to the Court that he is able to provide support for his children he already has and is in fact supporting the children or until a change in conditions warrant the lifting of this condition[.]”

In two near-identical opinions, the Ninth District court of appeals rejected both appellants’ arguments that the condition is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both men have appealed to the Supreme Court of Ohio, asking it to take jurisdiction of their appeal. We agreed to submit briefing as amicus curiae in support of the defendant-appellants’ requests that the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction to take their cases.

Legal Theory:

Non-procreation orders violate probationers’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to privacy and personal autonomy. Such provisions invade an individual’s reproductive freedom, are massively and unnecessarily intrusive, and when they contain a payment alternative, restrict only the rights of individuals who are unable to pay. Moreover, the conditions in these cases are impermissibly vague and intrusive under Ohio’s reasonableness test for probation conditions.

Status:

On October 17, 2019, both Appellant-Defendants filed notices of appeal and briefs in support of jurisdiction to the Ohio Supreme Court in their respective cases. That same day, we filed amicus briefs in both cases in support of jurisdiction.