A vacant warehouse in Kansas City, Mo., was among a growing number of properties across the country planned for conversion into a federal immigration detention center. After weeks of public pressure, the private developer that owns the property announced last week it would not transfer the property to the federal government. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

Outrage erupted last month when Oklahoma City residents learned of plans to convert a vacant warehouse into an immigration processing facility.

Making matters worse was the secrecy of the federal government: City leaders received no communication from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement aside from a mandated disclosure related to historic preservation.

Planning a major development without city input is antithetical to the in-depth, sometimes arcane permitting, planning and zoning process in Oklahoma City. Mayor David Holt, a former Republican state senator, said those land use decisions are among the most crucial of any municipal government.

“For any entity to be able to open a detention center in our communities, potentially next to neighborhoods or schools, regardless of your views on immigration policy or enforcement, is very challenging, because that’s a very high-impact use, and that’s the kind of thing that we would expect to talk about,” he told Stateline.

Communities across the country are facing similar prospects as ICE undertakes a massive expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer.

During President Donald Trump’s second term, ICE is holding a record number of detainees — more than 70,000 as of January — across its own facilities as well as in contracted local jails and private prisons. ICE documents from last week show plans for acquiring and renovating 16 processing sites that hold up to 1,500 people each and eight detention centers that hold up to 10,000 each, for a total capacity of 92,600 beds. The agency also has plans for some 150 new leases and office expansions across the country, Wired reported.

But ICE’s plans to convert industrial buildings — often warehouses — into new detention facilities have recently faced fierce opposition over humanitarian and economic concerns. From Utah to Texas to Georgia, local governments have sought to block these massive facilities. But with limited legal authority, city and state officials have turned to the court of public opinion to deter private developers and the federal government.

Holt, who is the president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization representing the more than 1,400 leaders of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, said cities have little legal recourse over the ICE facilities.

“We all have a clear, unified position that really crosses party lines,” he said, “and then we also have a clear understanding of how limited our options are.”

Local leaders often cite the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause, which says federal laws supersede conflicting state laws. That leaves cities with limited influence over projects that could take industrial space off tax rolls, cause new strains on city services and raise serious humanitarian concerns given the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement, including the high-profile killings of two Americans in Minnesota.

Facing bipartisan opposition, the out-of-state owner of the Oklahoma City warehouse ultimately decided to end talks of selling or leasing its warehouse to the federal government.

Similar public pressure has proved effective in reversing plans in several other cities: In late January, a Canadian firm said it would not proceed with a planned sale of a Virginia warehouse after it faced calls for a boycott from Canadian politicians and businesses. In Mississippi, U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker announced the federal government would “look elsewhere” after he spoke with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who oversees ICE. Wicker, a Republican who said he supports immigration enforcement, echoed local economic concerns of a project planned in Byhalia.

Some officials have welcomed the new facilities: Missouri Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Alford has lobbied to land a detention and processing center in his district. And last week, a Maryland county approved a resolution expressing its “full support” for ICE, which is considering purchasing a warehouse there, despite local protests. But most communities have fought them.

Proposed Oklahoma City ICE facility is off the table

Neither DHS nor ICE responded to Stateline’s questions.

Holt said the discussion resembles other local development concerns where NIMBY — short for Not in My Backyard — is a common description of opponents.

“There are plenty of people who are very law-and-order and supporters of law enforcement who don’t want a jail next to their house,” he said. “That’s why it’s got such broad opposition: NIMBYism is the most powerful force sometimes in American politics and nobody wants a detention center next to their home, their business or their school.”

A political and legal fight

After learning that ICE planned to take over a vacant warehouse within its city limits, the Kansas City Council in January swiftly approved a five-year ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities.

Kansas City Council member Andrea Bough, who is also a private development attorney, said the move was both political and legal: The city wanted to send a clear signal opposing ICE facilities, but it also wants to exert its local authority over planning and zoning.

She acknowledged the legal hurdle posed by the supremacy clause, but said there was enough ambiguity over the city’s ability to regulate land use that it may take the issue to the courts.

“Some would say local building codes and zoning regulations do not apply to the federal government,” she said. “That’s something I think we would probably in this situation be willing to fight until we had clear guidance on that.”

Following weeks of pressure, the Kansas City firm that owns the 920,000-square-foot warehouse announced Thursday it was no longer “actively engaged with the U.S. Government or any other prospective purchaser,” the Kansas City Star reported.

Jackson County, which includes portions of Kansas City and the potential detention facility, is considering a similar ban. And across the state line, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas, is considering a similar two-year moratorium.

But there are clear limitations on cities’ ability to stop federal projects, said Nestor Davidson, a professor who teaches land use and local government law at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design.

“The federal government can assert immunity from certain state and local laws, including zoning, but it’s complicated, and there are nuances,” he said.

Still, Davidson said some case law has shown cities may have stronger legal footing for zoning rules that are broad and not directly targeted at specific federal government projects.

“I expect to see litigation,” he said. “I think you’re going to see these conversations play out as land use fights often do: both in a legal venue and in a political venue.”

Governments pressured to act

Kansas City’s moratorium has sparked interest among local activists who have pressured elected officials in other cities across the country to act. But many local officials are adamant that federal law ties their hands.

U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost & Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida

In a legal opinion provided to the Orlando City Council in Florida, City Attorney Mayanne Downs rejected “suggestions of actions we can supposedly take,” including moratoriums or using zoning ordinances to block ICE detention centers.

“However well motivated these suggestions are, the law is very clear: ICE, as an agency of our federal government, ICE is immune from any local regulation that interferes in any way with its federal mandate,” Downs wrote to the mayor and city commissioners.

ICE is reportedly considering a new $100 million processing center in southeast Orlando.

The county commission in Orange County, which includes Orlando, discussed the issue last week after receiving similar legal advice. County Commissioner Nicole Wilson said the board is even more constrained because of a recent Florida law limiting certain local governments’ ability to regulate development through 2027.

After being advised against passing a moratorium, the board agreed with Wilson’s follow-up suggestion to draft a resolution expressing its opposition. That will be considered at a future meeting.

“It doesn’t sound like it has the teeth that a moratorium would have, but it essentially gives an awareness that we’ve established a position in opposition to this type of facility in Orange County,” Wilson told Stateline.

An attorney by trade, Wilson said the case law regarding federal projects largely centers on disputes about post offices, which she said is not an appropriate comparison to the massive detention centers currently contemplated.

“A post office has the same water consumption and sewage as probably a lot of other uses,” she said. “If you take a warehouse that was designed for 25,000 widgets and put 15,000 humans in it, you’ve got a very different set of local needs and services that are being used and being taxed and being burdened.”

Working with the feds

Communities have often opposed various other federal projects, such as federal courthouses. But the federal government generally takes the time to listen to local concerns and communicate building plans with communities, said Jason Klumb, a former regional administrator with the U.S. General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s real estate.

“Generally, GSA has had kind of a good neighbor approach, understanding that they have requirements for federal facilities, and some of those facilities may not always be popular,” said Klumb, an Obama appointee.

But the federal government has not been shy about exerting its constitutional authority.

For example, late last month, GSA announced it would build a new $239 million federal courthouse in downtown Chattanooga, Tennessee, despite bipartisan lobbying from city and federal officials for a different site.

“The feds get what the feds want, ultimately,” Klumb said.

In a statement, a GSA spokesperson declined to clarify the agency’s current role in acquiring ICE detention facilities. The statement said the agency was “following all lease procurement procedures in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.”

Communities have largely been left out of the administration’s immigration decision-making process.

New documents confirm federal government plans to put an ICE facility in Merrimack

“Most of the information we have received on this facility has been through news leaks and the government has not reached out to us yet,” said Paul Micali, the town manager of Merrimack, New Hampshire.

Through an open records request, the ACLU of New Hampshire confirmed that ICE was planning to convert a 43-acre warehouse property in the town of about 28,200.

The federal plans were obtained from the state’s historic preservation office, which came under fire for not informing Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte of ICE’s proposal. That agency’s top official resigned last week after pressure from Ayotte.

Ayotte’s office did not respond to a request for comment. On Thursday, her office released documents detailing how the federal government’s $158 million plan to retrofit the property would create hundreds of long-term jobs for the region.

Testifying before Congress Thursday, an ICE official said the feds will not cancel the project over local concerns.

Micali said the vacant warehouse currently provides about $529,000 in annual property taxes — a substantial sum given the town’s property tax base of about $20 million.

In a letter to Noem, the Town Council said converting the property to a tax-free federal facility would result in higher local taxes for residents. Merrimack is also concerned about potential demands for water, fire and other city services, Micali said, but can’t even begin to assess needs without more details from the feds.

He’s speaking with lawyers about what options, if any, the town may have to assert local zoning power.

“We’re looking at every possibility,” he said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

An Amazon Web Services data center is shown situated near single-family homes in Stone Ridge, Va., in 2024. As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers. (Photo by Nathan Howard/Getty Images)

As Americans grow increasingly frustrated over their electricity bills, states are trying to keep the nation’s growing number of data centers from causing higher energy costs for consumers.

For years, many states competed aggressively to land data centers, sprawling campuses full of the computer servers that store and transmit the data behind apps and websites. But many officials are now scrutinizing how those power-hungry projects might affect the electric bills of households, small businesses and other industries.

Oregon last year became one of the first states to enact a law requiring utilities to charge data centers different electric prices than other industries because of how they drive up the cost of energy production and transmission.

“We are now making data centers pay a higher rate commensurate with the amount of energy they’re sucking out of the system,” said Oregon state Rep. Tom Andersen, a Democrat.

Republican and Democratic leaders in at least a dozen states have targeted data centers with separate, higher electric rates to protect other customers. States also are requiring long-term commitments and financial guarantees through collateral before greenlighting infrastructure investments for new data center projects. But lawmakers acknowledge that numerous factors affect energy prices, so targeting data center-specific costs can be complicated.

An increasingly digital world and the rise of energy-intensive artificial intelligence has led to major expansion of data centers: Consultant McKinsey & Company expects companies to spend nearly $7 trillion worldwide on data centers by 2030. But the industry is facing growing scrutiny, from neighbors who don’t want to live near the massive server farms and from residents worried about how data centers will affect their own swelling utility bills.

Delaware legislation that would charge data centers higher rates advanced out of committee last week. On Tuesday, a Florida state Senate committee approved a bill that would create new rate structures for data centers.

In Oklahoma, a Republican state senator has proposed a moratorium on new data centers until late 2029, allowing the state to study how data centers affect utility rates, the environment and property values.

Separate legislation from state Rep. Brad Boles will seek to protect other ratepayers from the costs of data centers. Boles, the Republican chair of the state Energy and Natural Resources Oversight Committee, said his in-the-works measure would ensure data centers pay their fair share.

Boles told Stateline that his constituents are increasingly worried about data centers, with a dozen potential major ones proposed across the state.

“We’re trying to ensure that those data centers pay for their own infrastructure and we don’t shift that cost or burden to everyday Oklahomans,” he said.

In Oregon, Andersen’s legislation created a new rate structure for data centers with long-term contracts and required regulators to separate the costs of those facilities from other ratepayers.

But consumer advocates have already accused the state’s largest utility of trying to skirt the new law by making residential customers pay part of the long-term cost of supplying large data centers in a pending rate case.

Andersen, a member of the state House Committee on Climate, Energy and Environment, said the new rate structure is unlikely to immediately lower consumer bills. Rather, it aims to curb future increases as data centers require more power generation and transmission.

“We’re not going to change the rates that are being currently paid by the ratepayers and the users of the electricity,” he said. “It’s just going to stop future raises.”

The data center boom

Rising utility bills continue to outpace inflation, sparking anger from consumers and more scrutiny from state regulators, governors and lawmakers.

The boom of data centers is frequently cited as a prime reason for rising electricity prices, as their operation requires more power generation, transmission and distribution upgrades. A Bloomberg News analysis in September found wholesale electricity costs as much as 267% more for a single month than it did five years ago in areas with significant data center activity.

Data center companies say they aren’t the only reason prices are rising.

“It’s inaccurate to draw a clear line between large load customers like data centers coming online and increases in prices. It’s just not that simple,” said Lucas Fykes, senior director of energy policy and regulatory counsel at the Data Center Coalition, a trade group representing data center owners and users, including Amazon, Meta and Visa.

He said many factors have contributed to higher electricity prices, including extreme weather events and the nation’s aging electric grid.

Fykes said his organization opposes rate structures that treat data centers differently from other large electric users such as industrial sites. The organization is working with regulators as states increasingly implement practices to ensure residents and small businesses aren’t on the hook for big energy investments if major projects including data centers don’t come to fruition.

Fykes said the country is likely just in the “beginning innings” of a longer ramp-up in technology and power needs.

“We are also in a global race to build out data centers, to support AI, to support cloud infrastructure,” he said. “It’s important to make sure that we maintain those assets here in the United States.”

That can pose competing interests for political leaders, including mayors, who have pushed hard to land investments from tech companies.

“We want to be leaders in AI, but we don’t want the infrastructure needed to support it,” said Rusty Paul, the mayor of Sandy Springs, Georgia, in the Atlanta metro area.

He was among several mayors addressing the issue of data centers at last month’s winter meeting of the United States Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. On a data center panel, Paul acknowledged the effect of Georgia’s tax incentives for data centers: “They’re just popping up everywhere,” he said.

But utilities and regulators are also making long overdue grid upgrades that aren’t tied to data centers, he said.

“The cost of electricity is going up for everybody — and it’s not all related to data centers,” he said.

A bipartisan push

The Georgia Public Service Commission last year created new rules that officials said would protect ratepayers from data center costs. In addition to covering costs of power consumed at their facilities, data centers would have to fund the costs incurred by upstream generation, transmission and distribution, the regulator said.

But lawmakers aren’t convinced those steps went far enough.

State Sen. Chuck Hufstetler, a Republican, is again pushing legislation that would solidify the regulator’s rules into law. His bill would prohibit utilities from passing along the fuel, generation or transmission costs of data centers to other customers.

He told Stateline that the regulator’s rules need to be codified into law so they can’t be weakened later.

Hufstetler said rising utility bills are among the biggest issues facing his constituents. High prices played a key role in November’s election, when Democrats flipped two seats on the state’s Public Service Commission board — the first time Democrats won statewide constitutional office in nearly two decades.

“I saw people with MAGA hats going into the election polling places that were saying, ‘I’m not voting for those guys that raised my rates,’” Hufstetler said, referring to the Republican incumbents who lost.

Hufstetler said the bill, which passed out of committee last year, has already gained major bipartisan support in the Senate, where it is sponsored by multiple Republicans and Democrats.

“This is very bipartisan,” he said. “We have all heard from our people around the state of Georgia.”

The Georgia Public Service Commission agrees in principle with the legislation, said agency spokesperson Tom Krause. But he said the regulator worries about losing flexibility if its rules are written into law.

“Not just this bill, but whenever the legislature codifies a rule that we put in place, we get a little nervous because it can tie our hands in special circumstances,” he said.

A complex challenge

As part of implementing a law enacted last year, Maryland’s utility regulator is weighing a new rate structure for data centers and other large load users.

Proposed regulations would require certain preapproval analysis for heavy power users, a separate rate tariff for data centers and collateral to ensure other ratepayers don’t end up paying for major investments if projects do not come to fruition.

Maryland’s Office of People’s Counsel, an independent agency representing residential utility users, said the proposed changes meet statutory requirements but could do more to protect consumers.

In a news release last month, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said residents are already facing higher costs from data centers from outside the state.

“While we push for better federal rules to address those costs, Maryland has the power—and customers a clear need—to make sure data centers within Maryland take on every cost that they impose on residential customers,” Lapp said.

Democratic Gov. Wes Moore recently joined 12 other governors and the Trump administration in urging the regional grid operator, PJM Interconnection, to shield residents and businesses from the infrastructure costs from data centers.

Maryland state Del. Lorig Charkoudian, a Democrat, said the grid operator has for years failed residents in the 13 states plus the District of Columbia that it serves. By delaying renewable energy projects, she said, PJM has kept older, more expensive power plants online, driving up prices as data centers increase demand.

PJM’s board last month rolled out a new data center plan that it said would improve demand forecasting, accelerate the addition of new generation projects and give states a larger role.

Charkoudian said states and utilities struggle to determine just how much power is needed. Data center users shop around for sites, which can cause wildly inaccurate forecasts of just how much power a utility will need.

“It actually has a very concrete financial impact on ratepayers,” she told Stateline. “And so that’s why one of the things that really could make a difference for ratepayers is if we actually had an accurate count of how much we’re getting online.”

While some of those challenges lie outside the realm of state control, Charkoudian said there are things the state can do, including the new rate structure for larger users. She’s crafting a bill encouraging data centers to curtail their power usage during peak periods, such as hot days, when the electrical system is taxed by heavy usage of air conditioners, Maryland Matters reported.

Charkoudian said adding solar generation and storage are low-cost ways to respond quickly to demand. And states can avoid the need for more generation by doubling down on energy efficiency programs that lower demand and also consumer costs.

“The best time to fix this was five years ago,” she said. “The next best time is right this minute, because it’s only going to get worse.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira contributed to this story. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Residential and commercial development in the Sugarhouse area of Salt Lake City is pictured in July 2024. A new study found Utah median household incomes increased at a higher rate than any other state over the past 50 years. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)

Household incomes have grown in nearly every state over the past 50 years, but a new study concludes that growth has been uneven across the country.

An analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, released Tuesday from the Urban Institute’s Center for Local Finance and Growth, found inflation-adjusted incomes in Western, mid-Atlantic and New England states have grown the most since 1970, while incomes in Midwestern states have grown the least.

Between 1970 and 2023, Utah household incomes increased at a higher rate than any other state: The median income went up 78%, an increase of $40,820 in inflation-adjusted dollars to $93,421. Utah was followed by Colorado, New Hampshire, California, Arizona and Virginia, all of which saw more than 60% growth in median household incomes adjusted for inflation.

Nationally, median household incomes grew by an average of 32%.

The study found only one state saw inflation-adjusted incomes drop over the past five decades: West Virginia’s median household income fell by 0.4%, from $56,161 to $55,948 in inflation-adjusted dollars.

West Virginia had the second-lowest household income in the study, ranking ahead of only Mississippi’s $54,203. Massachusetts ranked the highest, with a median household income of $99,858.

The Urban Institute, a left-leaning think tank, found that rates of state sales and income taxes had no association with changes in median household income. The analysis also found states with colder temperatures and higher property taxes saw greater median income growth, despite popular notions that lower property taxes and warm temperatures can lead to more prosperity.

The factors most strongly associated with household income growth were educational attainment and increases in the percentage of immigrants in the state population, the study concluded.

“This could be because immigration leads to economic growth, immigrants seek out growing areas, or both,” the study said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

A voter casts a paper ballot in Virginia. Despite two recent legal setbacks, the Trump administration has sued the Virginia elections commissioner in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data. (Photo by Markus Schmidt/Virginia Mercury)

The Trump administration has sued another state — Virginia — in its quest to obtain sensitive voter data, despite two recent legal setbacks in suits against other states.

The Justice Department on Friday sued Susan Beals, the elections commissioner in Virginia, after months of seeking a copy of the state’s voter registration lists, including individual names, addresses, dates of birth and Social Security numbers.

“Virginia becomes the next state sued for ignoring federal law!” U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon wrote on the social media platform X.

The Trump administration has sued more than 20 states, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, in what the administration frames as a quest to ensure that states are properly maintaining voter rolls, that ineligible people are kept off rolls and that only citizens are voting.

The U.S. Department of Justice is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed in September.

While election officials stress that well-maintained voter rolls are important, President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies have long promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

In the Virginia case, the Justice Department claims it was reassured by the administration of former Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin that it would hand over voter rolls. But that did not occur and Youngkin was term-limited. On Saturday, Democrat Abigail Spanberger was sworn in as Virginia’s 75th governor.

Beals, the elections commissioner, was appointed by Youngkin in 2022. The state election department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Last week, similar federal lawsuits hit roadblocks in California and Oregon.

U.S. District Court Judge David Carter dismissed a lawsuit by the Department of Justice against California seeking voter information, calling the request “unprecedented and illegal.” Just a day earlier, a separate federal judge said from the bench he planned to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon.

Democratic secretaries of state have criticized the federal government’s data requests, calling them an unwarranted attempt by the Trump administration to exercise federal power over elections. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections, though Congress can regulate them.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

Ryan Patraw processes ballots at the Marion County Clerk’s Office in Salem, Ore., on May 16. Judges in Oregon and California have ruled against the Trump administration’s requests to turn over voter data. (Photo by Ron Cooper/Oregon Capital Chronicle)

The Trump administration hit two major legal roadblocks this week in its effort to obtain sensitive personal voter data from states.

On Thursday, U.S. District Court Judge David Carter dismissed a lawsuit by the Department of Justice against California seeking voter information. The Trump administration has demanded that at least 40 states provide unredacted voter data, which can include driver’s license and Social Security numbers. The department has sued 21 states and Washington, D.C., that have refused to provide the data.

Carter, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, called the government’s request “unprecedented and illegal” in a 33-page ruling.

Just a day earlier, U.S. District Court Judge Mustafa Kasubhai said he planned to dismiss a similar lawsuit against Oregon. Kasubhai, an appointee of President Joe Biden, said his final written decision may be different.

“The federal government tried to abuse their power to force me to break my oath of office and hand over your private data,” Oregon Secretary of State Tobias Read said in a statement about the tentative ruling, according to the Oregon Capital Chronicle. “I stood up to them and said no. Now, the court sided with us. Tonight, we proved, once again, we have the power to push back and win.”

The Justice Department has framed its demands as necessary to ensure states are properly maintaining their voter rolls. It says it needs the information to ensure ineligible people are kept off rolls and that only citizens are voting. The department is sharing state voter roll information with the Department of Homeland Security in a search for noncitizens, the Trump administration confirmed in September.

While election officials say well-maintained voter rolls are important, President Donald Trump and some of his Republican allies have long promoted baseless claims of widespread voter fraud. 

Democratic election officials have criticized the data requests, calling them an unwarranted attempt by the Trump administration to exercise federal power over elections. Under the U.S. Constitution, states administer elections, though Congress can regulate them.

In arguing for the data, the federal government cited the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act and Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1960, all of which were intended to protect elections and the right to vote. 

In California, Carter ruled that the federal government — and the court — are not authorized to use civil rights legislation “as a tool to forsake the privacy rights of millions of Americans.”

“There cannot be unbridled consolidation of all elections power in the Executive without action from Congress and public debate,” Carter wrote. “This is antithetical to the promise of fair and free elections our country promises and the franchise that civil rights leaders fought and died for.” 

The Justice Department did not immediately say whether it planned to appeal the ruling.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. 

A trial over Missouri’s abortion regulations began Monday at the Jackson County Courthouse in Kansas City, Mo. Experts are watching the case, which could impact abortion access across the Midwest and South. (Photo by Kevin Hardy/Stateline)

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The outcome of a trial over Missouri’s abortion regulations could ripple far beyond the state, potentially creating new availability for women in the Midwest and South who can’t access abortion close to home.

As a judge weighs the constitutionality of a litany of state restrictions on abortion, the stakes are clear for Missouri women: The decision could hamper access for nearly everyone in the state — or greatly broaden it in ways not seen in decades. That would allow women in a dozen nearby states with abortion bans to travel a shorter distance to access the procedure.

“Opening and reestablishing rights in the state of Missouri would help to alleviate some of the pressure that other states have since so many Southern states have banned abortion,” said Julie Burkhart, the co-owner of Hope Clinic in Granite City, Illinois. “It just seems logical that we would see a shift in migration patterns of patients in the country.”

At her clinic, about a 15-minute drive from downtown St. Louis, Missourians account for about half of all patients, Burkhart said. Though Missouri voters in 2024 enshrined a right to abortion in the state constitution, access has remained highly limited because of restrictive state laws. Only procedural abortions are available on a limited basis across three Planned Parenthood clinics in the state.

Many of those state laws face legal scrutiny this week as a Missouri judge weighs the constitutionality of regulations targeting abortion providers. Those include a 72-hour waiting period between initial appointments and procedures, mandatory pelvic exams for medication abortions and a ban on telemedicine appointments for medication abortions.

Planned Parenthood affiliates in Missouri argue state restrictions are unconstitutional under 2024’s voter-approved constitutional amendment. Over decades, state restrictions have gutted Missouri’s provider networks, limited appointment availability and ultimately forced abortions to a halt in 2022, before a limited number resumed after the 2024 vote.

Experts and advocates are closely monitoring the Missouri case, which is expected to be appealed regardless of the outcome, because of its practical implications on access in the region. While many women now rely on abortion medication, procedural abortion is still crucial for those seeking later-term abortions or who prefer an in-clinic procedure.

But the two-week bench trial in downtown Kansas City also tests lawmakers’ ability to put in place rules so restrictive that they effectively ban abortion — a practice used by anti-abortion lawmakers in other states looking to limit access to the procedure.

“Judges do not operate in a vacuum,” Burkhart said, “ … and we know for a fact that judges look outside the borders of their state for information and for guidance. I do see this as having national importance.”

That’s especially true in other states also litigating abortion access, including Arizona, Michigan and Ohio, said Rebecca Reingold, an associate director at Georgetown University’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

While state judges are not bound by the decisions of judges in other states, their deliberations can be informed by court rulings, particularly involving novel legal questions or areas of the law that are evolving.

“There is little doubt that advocates and decision-makers in other states navigating similar legal challenges are closely monitoring the litigation over Missouri’s abortion regulations,” Reingold said.

Restrictions targeting abortion

In the first days of the trial, Planned Parenthood leaders argued that ever-changing state laws and agency regulations have drastically limited access, caused needless red tape and posed privacy risk for their patients.

Dr. Margaret Baum, chief medical officer with St. Louis-based Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, said the Missouri requirements specifically target abortion rather than all other kinds of medical care.

“I provide vasectomies routinely. … And I am not required to have a complication plan, contact a primary care physician, even ask the patient how many miles they live from the health center.”

Opening day of Missouri abortion-rights trial focuses on decades of state restrictions

Baum said state-mandated reporting rules unique to abortion require clinicians to ask the race, education level, marital status and specific location of each patient — none of which is relevant to their care.

Planned Parenthood Great Rivers would like to offer abortion services in Springfield, Baum testified. Access in that region would provide an option for rural Missourians, and also could help serve residents in nearby Arkansas, Oklahoma and Texas, where abortion is almost universally banned.

But the organization’s facilities there do not meet state abortion regulations for physical attributes, including hallway size, doorway size and the number of recliners in recovery rooms, Baum testified.

Lawyers for the state defended Missouri’s restrictions as commonsense safeguards aimed at protecting vulnerable women. The attorney general’s office argued that complication risks of abortion justify additional state regulation — despite professional medical associations saying it’s generally safe. The AG’s office also maintained that Planned Parenthood faced a conflict of interest because of its financial motivations.

“Abortion is a business,” Deputy Solicitor General Peter Donohue said during a procedural argument on Monday. “Your Honor, the plaintiffs are asking to deregulate their profession in order to make more money.”

The state was expected to call as witnesses anti-abortion doctors and activists later in the trial.

Patients traveling for care

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned federal constitutional protections for abortion in June 2022, the number of abortions has increased slightly across the country, according to the health research nonprofit KFF.

The group points to expanded telehealth, which can offer medication abortion more affordably through virtual appointments.

Since the 2022 ruling and subsequent state abortion bans, patients have experienced higher travel costs for abortions and delays in care, according to research published in the American Journal of Public Health in July.

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco found that travel time to access abortion increased from 2.8 hours to 11.3 hours for residents in states with abortion bans. Travel costs increased from $179 to $372. And more than half of survey respondents said their abortion care required an overnight hotel stay, compared with 5% before an abortion ban.

In 2024, an estimated 7,880 Missourians traveled to Illinois and 3,960 traveled to Kansas to access abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization focused on advancing reproductive rights.

Those Missourians were among the approximate 155,000 people who crossed state lines to access abortion care that year, representing 15% of all abortions provided in states without total bans.

Ongoing uncertainty

Regardless of its outcome, the Missouri case is expected to be appealed. Even if the plaintiffs are ultimately successful, it may take a long time to restore care networks across the state, said Isaac Maddow-Zimet, a data scientist at the Guttmacher Institute.

“And that’s particularly the case when there are states that have a lot of legal uncertainty or restrictions coming into effect and then coming out of effect,” he said. “It’s not quick to open up a clinic. It’s not quick to even necessarily expand the kinds of services, or the kinds of the number of people that a clinic can see.”

Kimya Forouzan, the organization’s principal state policy adviser, said Missouri’s landscape is evidence that lawmakers can drastically curb abortion access without total bans. And despite an overwhelming vote to amend the constitution, legal battles can follow.

Even if the state’s laws are found unconstitutional, Forouzan said, lawmakers will likely still push anti-abortion measures. She noted that several bills have already been introduced in this year’s just-convened legislative session, and that Republican lawmakers are pushing a ballot measure to repeal 2024’s reproductive rights amendment.

“There’s very much a push to pass as many restrictions as possible and kind of see what happens later and how things shape up later. … Time will tell, but we do know that they’re still pushing forth restrictions,” she said.

Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org. Missouri Independent reporter Anna Spoerre can be reached at aspoerre@missouriindependent.com.