The North Dakota Supreme Court revived a near‑total abortion ban in the state on November 21, 2025, after reversing a lower‑court ruling that had struck the law down. While three of the five justices found the statute unconstitutionally vague, the state’s requirement of four justices to invalidate legislation meant the ban automatically took effect.
The challenged statute, enacted in April 2023, criminalizes the performance of an abortion in nearly all cases, with exceptions only for rape or incest within the first six weeks of pregnancy, or when a patient’s life or serious health risk is at stake. The law imposes felony penalties on providers—up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine—while patients themselves are not subject to criminal liability.
Pro‑life advocates touted the decision, calling it a victory for unborn life and the rule of law, while abortion‑rights groups denounced it as a “devastating loss” for pregnant individuals in need of care. Historically, the state had seen no operational abortion clinic since one relocated to Minnesota in 2022, leaving access effectively limited even before the reinstatement of the ban.
The decision places North Dakota among the most restrictive states on abortion following the reversal of Roe v. Wade. With no clinics currently operating in-state, residents seeking abortions will need to travel across state lines, further intensifying the national debate over access, state sovereignty, and legal consistency in post-Roe America.
From a broader perspective, the ruling highlights how procedural rules and quorum requirements can dictate substantive legal outcomes. Here, even though a majority agreed the law was vague and unconstitutional, the high threshold—four‐fifths of the justices—meant the statute stayed on the books. For lawmakers and advocacy groups, the case underscores both the importance of legislative clarity and the strategic role of court composition and procedural thresholds.
