Current Issue:
IN RE APPLICATION OF BARBARA EAMES AND WILLIAM EAMES PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 1:7-1 AND N.J.S.A. 1:7-4 SEEKING TO VOID L. 2021, C. 375
UPON APPEAL TO NJ SUPREME COURT, C-285 SEPTEMBER TERM 2025, DOCKET NO. 090806
Jersey Justice Center action:
Financial support of litigation by Plaintiffs …
Case History:
01/13/26 – The NJ Supreme Court, in a one-sentence Order, denied the Plaintiff’s petition for certification of the judgment in A-001411-22. Hence the NJ Supreme Court has declined to hear Plaintiffs’ appeal of the May 2025 ruling by the Appellate Division of NJ Superior Court, acting as the court of original jurisdiction.
07/11/25 – Petition for Certification to the New Jersey Supreme Court, Docket No. 090806, seeking appeal, on Petition from an application seeking exercise of original jurisdiction pursuant to N.J.S.A. 1:7-1 and 1:7-4 from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, Docket No. A-01411-22T4. NJ Supreme Court Docket No. 090806 filed July 11, 2025.
Description, 7/14/25:
New Jersey’s Supreme Court is being asked to rule on an appeal that could disrupt the State’s foundational abortion law – the 2022 “Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act.”
The appeal is based on a May 2025 ruling by the Appellate Division of NJ Superior Court, which denied the core request to void and overturn that Act.
Litigation brought by two state citizens claimed that the Act was improperly enacted. They claimed the Legislature violated the NJ Constitution and law by publishing the bill text and notice of action only after the bill was passed. The plaintiffs charge that the Legislature violated law by failing to declare an emergency to authorize shortcuts, acting prior to receipt of a required fiscal estimate and failing to obtain a required mandated benefit review. The published calendar required those wishing to testify to register before the bills were even introduced.
The Legislation was unexpectedly introduced on the final committee day of a two-year Legislative Session. It was assigned to committees in the General Assembly and Senate, reviewed, and released by both committees along party lines that same night. Four days later, on the final day of the Session, both houses of the Legislature passed the bill, also along party lines. Three days later, Gov. Phil Murphy signed the legislation into law.
Plaintiffs Barbara and William Eames brought suit because they and legislators complained the public had no advance notice, multiple procedures to protect public access and enable public participation in the legislative process were violated, and legislators themselves complained they had no time to review the legislation.
The Appellate Division court, serving as the court of original jurisdiction, denied discovery, then denied the plaintiffs’ charges, setting precedent for how claims under the governing statute should be considered. In doing so, the Appellate Division bypassed several of the alleged violations. The appeal asks the Supreme Court to correct these actions. The Jersey Justice Center, a legal defense corporation, is supporting the litigation.
05/22/25 – Motion for Reconsideration: Denied. – Ruling by the Appellate Division of NJ Superior Court, on Plaintiff motion of 5/19/25, seeking Reconsideration of the Court’s 5/8/25 decision, based on Appellate Court overlooking various issues in the case.
05/08/25 – Order Denying Motion to Intervene by Abraham Sharaby
05/08/25 – Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Expand the Record
05/08/25 – Order Denying Petitioners’ Motion to Submit a Reply Brief to Motion
05/08/25 – Appellate Division original determination, Docket No. A-01411-22T4: Denied. – The Appellate Division decided the matter against Plaintiffs, finding that the statute N.J.S.A. 1:7-1 only provides a challenge on constitutional grounds which were not violated in this case. The court remanded the case for consideration of the merits of the original Petition.
03/14/25 – Plaintiffs reply to Appellate Division, submitting a Motion to Strike Inaccuracies and/or Reply – to strike statements included in the Attorney General’s March 13, 2025 brief that should be stricken as unsupported by the record.
03/12/25 – Petitioners’ Notice of Cross-Motion to Supplement and In Support of Motion (by Abraham Sharaby) to Invervene, filed 03/12/25
02/03/25 – Oral Argument of original case before Appellate Division.
05/03/24 – Brief by Attorney General in response to Plaintiffs’ brief, Docket No. A-01411-22T4.
01/26/24 — Merits Brief, Docket No. A-01411-22T4, submitted before Appellate Division, NJ Superior Court.
10/24/23 – NJ Supreme Court’s Order Denying Leave to Appeal, filed 10/24/23
08/11/23 – Order on Motion to Toll/Stay Pending Motion Seeking Leave to Appeal, filed 8/11/23
06/28/23 – Order on Motion to Supplement the Record and for Discovery and a Hearing, filed 6/28/23
04/04/23— Order on Motion for Discovery and Statement of Items Comprising the Record on Appeal
01/12/23 – Plaintiffs Barbara Eames and William Eames file petition in Superior Court of NJ, Appellate Division, seeking to declare L. 2021, C. 375 (enacted 1/13/22) unconstitutional, based on constitutional and statutory deficiences in how the Legislature enacted the “Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act,” (01/06/22 to 01/10/22)
01/19/22 – Complaint filed by Abraham Sharaby in Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer County division – Denied
01/13/22 – “Freedom of Reproductive Choice Act” signed into law by NJ Gov. Phil Murphy
Litigants’ Outline of the above Litigation:
CASE SUMMARY – January, 2022
This case revolves around a failure by the Legislature to follow proper procedures in the enactment of “an act concerning freedom of reproductive choice,” S49. The remedy sought is for the law to be declared by the Court to be void and ineffective.
THE STORY
New Jersey’s Legislature had developed a habit of taking shortcuts. Despite Democrats having control of the governorship and both houses of the legislature, they had advanced to short-cutting public notice, and even substituting committee members, rather than have any party member deviate from orders.
As the 2020-2021 Legislative Session was ending and leadership had been unsuccessful in pressuring members to pass a huge expansion of abortion, the governor stepped on the scales.
FIVE DAYS
It was the final day of committee hearings – anything left undone this day would go into the scrap heap and the Legislators would have to start all over in the next 2-year session.
As the morning broke, social media rumored that there would be a new and substantial bill to fill in where earlier drafts had failed. But no one had seen it.
Snow was coming – and the governor ordered a snow day, sending non-essential staff home. The State House was mostly empty, with COVID-19 restrictions closing the Assembly to visitors.
Conservatives were watchful as Committee hearings began. Two new bill numbers were spoken of, but there was no text – no handouts – no postings – nothing published on the Legislature’s website.
It is practice to introduce identical bills in the lower house (NJ General Assembly) and the upper house (NJ Senate). Normally, bills are introduced, then fully published for all to read and ponder – days or weeks before Committees review them. But not this time.
The Committees met … but the “new bills” were missing. Both on the Senate side and the Assembly side, Committees adjourned to await the text of the bills. Something … that only Democrats knew of … was afoot.
A few suspicious citizens and organizations (the State House was closed) registered to testify remotely on an unknown and unseen bill.
A sudden rush brought committee members back from adjournment as the committees were called into session. Papers were hurriedly circulated, with time only for cursory review. The chairmen called for “testimony,” then for comments by committee members, and then for a vote to approve and release the bills.
Citizens waiting to testify were read a broad-brush summary of the bills, then were asked to testify. Some, who had been waiting through the long adjournment, were distracted when the committees came back into session, and missed their opportunity to testify. This was an insult to due process, tradition, and just basic fairness. Senate Committee members voted to release the bill, all Democrats in favor, all Republicans opposed. The Assembly Committee did likewise. As darkness fell on the last day of hearings, leadership had their bill. In four days, they would put it up for final vote in both houses.
FINAL VOTING DAY
Monday, January 10, 2022 was the final voting day of the 2-year Legislative Session for the full NJ General Assembly and full NJ Senate. The Assembly would consider 126 bills this day; the Senate, 166 bills.
On the floor of both houses, bill “S49” purported falsely to codify the right to abortion at any point in pregnancy into New Jersey’s Constitution. Despite multiple Republican attempts in both houses to table or modify the bill, all failed. Democrats of both houses passed the bill by majority vote. In five calendar days (3 of them “snow days”), the governor had his foundational abortion bill – slam dunk. He signed it into law on January 13, 2022. It took effect “immediately.”
THE ISSUES
♦ No advance notice – as required under the NJ Open Public Meetings Act
♦ No advance review of the legislation by committee members, other legislators, the media or the general public
♦ Bills not available except by verbal description to those testifying remotely
♦ Bills not available to Legislators until moments before they were asked to vote
♦ Questions of whether internal procedures were properly followed – given minimal staffing during a day off and the weekend
♦ No text distributed for review by legislators – the full Assembly voted on 126 bills that Monday; the Senate voted on 166 bills. Procedurally and by law, Legislators are supposed to have time to review bills before voting on them
♦ No “emergency vote” was held to suspend the rules for deliberation to allow such haste
♦ There was no advance review of the bills by the Mandated Benefits Review Commission, as required by law
♦ There was no advance fiscal impact analysis of the bills, as required by law
♦ The enacted legislation attempts to block any future Legislature or other governing body from ever amending the bill’s provisions
REMEDY
New Jersey’s constitution is unique. By virtue of vesting administrative and appointments authority in one man, the governor, it sets up a legal tyranny. In other states, these actions could be challenged by the Attorney General. In NJ, the AG is appointed by, and reports to, the Governor. In other states, the people elect their judges. In NJ, the governor appoints Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices.
But a statute enacted to allow a governor to challenge the legislature had a unique provision that would allow “any two citizens” to also challenge the methods by which a law was enacted, with the Appellate Division of the NJ Superior Court acting as the court of original jurisdiction.
It is under this statute that S49, now known as P.L. 2021, Ch. 375, has been challenged.
Oral Argument is currently scheduled for February 3, 2025.
§
Help us support the legal team pursuing remedy in this case:
Jersey Justice Center – 330 Changebridge Rd – Ste 101, Pine Brook, NJ 07058-9839