In Welty v. Dunaway, a divided Sixth Circuit panel affirmed a universal injunction against the "recruitment" provisions of Tennessee's Underage Abortion Trafficking Act. Judge Stranch's majority opinion, joined by Judge Ritz, upheld the district court's ruling that the provision is viewpoint-discriminatory as applied to two abortion-rights advocates and facially overbroad. The law criminalizes intentionally recruiting an unemancipated minor for an abortion that would be illegal in Tennessee, even if the abortion takes place in a state where it is legal.
Then-Chief Judge Sutton dissented, arguing that the law does not cover the plaintiffs' counseling and advocacy. He noted that the plaintiffs provide information to minors but do not try to persuade them to get abortions, and that the state disclaimed any intention to prosecute them. For Sutton, that meant there was no live controversy justifying even an as-applied injunction, let alone a universal one. He also cited the Supreme Court's recent criticism of universal injunctions in Trump v. CASA.
The majority and dissent thus differ on a central point: whether the statute reaches the plaintiffs' conduct at all. They agree on the basic facts—the plaintiffs counsel minors about legal abortion options—but disagree on the legal consequence. The Reason analysis sides with Sutton, arguing the court should have narrowed the statute's scope rather than invalidate it across the board.