Keck v. McCuskey — West Virginia abortion amendment upheld against single-subject challenge

Case
Joshua C. Keck v. John B. McCuskey, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of West Virginia
Court
Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia
Judge
Daniel W. Greear (Jim Justice, 2021); Charles O. Lorensen (Jim Justice, 2022)
Date Decided
August 6, 2026
Docket No.
25-ICA-342
Topics
Constitutional amendments; Abortion; Single-subject rule; Declaratory judgment
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Joshua C. Keck filed a declaratory-judgment action challenging Article VI, Section 57 of the West Virginia Constitution, the 2018 amendment providing that the state constitution neither secures nor protects a right to abortion nor requires abortion funding.

Keck contended that the amendment improperly combined two separable propositions—the absence of a constitutional abortion right and the absence of a constitutional obligation to fund abortion—in one ballot question, contrary to Article XIV, Section 2’s separate-vote requirement. The Circuit Court of Cabell County dismissed the action with prejudice under Rule 12(b)(6).

The Court’s Holding

The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed. Reviewing de novo, it held that Article XIV, Section 2 is unambiguous: an amendment may concern either a single subject or related subject matters while still satisfying the separate-vote requirement.

The court concluded that Section 57 concerns the single subject of abortion. Its provisions regarding constitutional protection for abortion and public funding of abortion are logically and naturally connected, share a common purpose, and address the scope of constitutional protection. The court also noted that Keck had conceded the two matters were related, which independently would satisfy Article XIV, Section 2.

Key Takeaways

  • West Virginia’s constitutional amendment procedure permits an amendment addressing a single subject or related subject matters.
  • The abortion-rights and abortion-funding clauses in Article VI, Section 57 are sufficiently connected to comply with that rule.
  • The court affirmed dismissal of Keck’s declaratory-judgment challenge under Rule 12(b)(6).

Why It Matters

The decision leaves Article VI, Section 57 in force and rejects a procedural constitutional challenge to the 2018 abortion amendment. It also applies Article XIV, Section 2 according to its plain text, emphasizing that related subject matters may be included in one constitutional amendment.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top