Eric S. Rosen

Rosen stated that the judiciary’s challenge is “to preserve the balance” by “honor[ing] the principles of thoughtful deliberation, respect for differing views” and recognizing that justice must be continually approached “with humility and care.” He emphasized that judicial decisions “shape the entire areas of the law” and require interpreting both the U.S. and state constitutions, including “distinctions and rights unique to Kansas citizens.”

Speaking of his mentors, Rosen stated that he was taught “the obligation to reason carefully, to listen fully, and to remember that behind every case…are people whose lives” are affected by the court’s decisions, emphasizing the human impact of judicial decisions.

In Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Kobach (2024), in which Justice Rosen wrote the opinion for the Kansas Supreme Court, the Court considered whether Kansas could ban a common method of second-trimester abortion. Rosen reaffirmed that Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution protects a fundamental right to decide whether to end a pregnancy. The Court said the State could limit that right only if it had a very strong reason and used a narrowly focused law. The State argued the ban protected unborn life and medical standards, but it did not provide enough evidence that the ban was necessary. The Court therefore upheld the lower court’s decision blocking the ban. The 2024 case applied the constitutional right established in 2019 and struck down the specific abortion ban.

In Hodes & Nauser, MDs, P.A. v. Schmidt (2019), in which Justice Rosen joined the majority, the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether the state's constitution protects a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. The Court held that it does, finding that Section 1 protects the right through its guarantees of personal autonomy and bodily integrity. The Court said this protection applies to abortion because the decision whether to continue a pregnancy is part of a person’s right to control their own body. Because the court found the right to be fundamental, the state could restrict it only for a very compelling reason and through a narrowly focused law. This was the first case in which the Court established that the Kansas Constitution protects a right to abortion.

In League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Schwab (2024), in which Justice Rosen wrote a separate dissent, the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether three Kansas election laws violated constitutional rights. The laws limited who could deliver advance ballots, required election officials to check signatures on advance ballots, and made it illegal to falsely appear to be an election official. The majority upheld the ballot-delivery limit and said the Kansas Constitution does not protect a general, fundamental right to vote under Section 2. Rosen strongly disagreed. He argued that voting is a fundamental right protected by Sections 1 and 2 and that the Court should carefully review laws that place burdens on voting. He also warned that the majority’s approach weakened constitutional protections for voting rights.

In State v. N.R. (2021), in which Justice Rosen wrote a dissent, the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether requiring a person who committed a sex offense as a 14-year-old to register as a sex offender for life was unconstitutional. The majority held that lifetime registration was not punishment and therefore did not violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment or retroactive punishment. Rosen disagreed. He argued that lifetime registration was a serious punishment because it publicly labels a person as a sex offender, makes housing and employment harder, and can lead to shame and harassment. He also stressed that juveniles are more capable of change. Rosen would have found the lifetime registration requirement unconstitutional.

In Powerback Rehabilitation, LLC v. Kansas Department of Labor (2025), in which Justice Rosen joined Justice Standridge’s dissent, the Kansas Supreme Court considered whether a Kansas law protecting religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccine requirements conflicted with federal law. The Kansas law required employers to grant a religious exemption when an employee submitted a written request and prohibited employers from questioning whether the belief was sincere. The majority held that the state and federal laws could both be followed because federal law allowed, but did not require, employers to question sincerity. Rosen disagreed, joining the view that Kansas law improperly removed protections federal law gave employers, including the ability to question sincerity and consider whether an exemption would cause serious hardship.