Stephanie Stacy

In re Adoption of Yasmin S. Participant in Cassel's opinion. *Pertains to same sex adoption*

Holding(s): Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The Court held that "[t]he plain language of § 43-101 permits a same-sex married couple to adopt a minor child." [777]

Background: "A same-sex married couple sought to adopt a minor child. The county court determined that it lacked authority to permit adoption by a 'wife and wife' and denied the request." [772] The couple "assign[ed] that the county court erred in deter-mining that it lacked jurisdiction to permit a same-sex married couple to adopt a child and in interpreting § 43-101 in a waythat violated due process and equal protection rights." [773]

Rule(s): "As pertinent here, the statute provides that any minor child may be adopted by any adult person or persons and any adult child may be adopted by the spouse of such child’s parent in the cases and subject to sections 43-101 to 43-115, except that no person having a husband or wife may adopt a minor child unless the husband or wife joins in the petition therefor. If the husband or wife so joins in the petition therefor, the adoption shall be by them jointly, except that an adult husband or wife may adopt a child of the other spouse whether born in or out of wedlock." [774]

Nebraska Journalism Tr. v. Nebraska Dep't of Env't & Energy, 316 Neb. 174, 3 N.W.3d 361 (2024). Participated in Cassel's opinion. *Pertains to cost of open records request*

Planned Parenthood of the Heartland, Inc. v. Hilgers, 317 Neb. 217, 9 N.W.3d 604 (2024). Concurred in Papik's concurrence. *Pertains to legislation prohibiting the performance of gender altering procedures*

Holding: The Court affirmed the holding of the district court. The Court "f[ou]nd no merit to Planned Parenthood’s argument that L.B. 574 contains more than one subject in violation of article III, § 14." [239] 

Concurrence: Papik's wrote separately to "to suggest that in a future case, there may be a good reason to reconsider some of [the Courts'] precedent interpreting and apply- ing article III, § 14." [240]

Background: 'This litigation involve[d] the issue of whether L.B. 574 encompasses a single subject as required by Neb. Const. art. III, § 14. L.B. 574 was named the “Let Them Grow Act,' 1 and its stated purpose, as introduced in January 2023, was to 'prohibit the performance of gender altering procedures for individuals under the age of 9, provide for [the] definition of terminology[,] and allow for civil action[s] to be brought against violators of the act.'  The title of L.B. 574 stated that it was “relate[d] to public health and welfare.' Planned Parenthood refers to such procedures as 'gender-affirming care.' Without disparaging that preference, [the Court] employ[ed] the statutory language." [219]

Rule(s): "[A]rticle III, § 14, which provides in part: 'No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the subject shall be clearly expressed in the title. No law shall be amended unless the new act contains the sec- tion or sections as amended and the section or sections so amended shall be repealed.'" [230] "In considering such a challenge, we are guided by our respect for the Legislature as our coequal branch of government, as well as its role in setting policy for our state." [226] "this court has long held that “there should be a broad construction [on] constitutional restriction[s] that would not defeat the reasonable intent of the Legislature.” [227] “[I]t [is] the settled doctrine that courts will not declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional unless it is manifestly so.”  [227-28] “[W]here the limits of a proposed law, having natural and necessary connection with each other, and, together, are a part of one general sub- ject, the proposal is a single and not a dual proposition.” [230] 

Supported LB1059 (2022) which "[e]xempt[s] the Judicial Resources Commission from the Open Meetings Act." See “Transcript Prepared by Clerk of the Legislature Transcribers Office Judiciary Committee.” Nebraska Legislature, 17 Feb. 2022.) 

Benjamin S. v. Crystal S., 313 Neb. 799, 986 N.W.2d 492 (2023). Signed majority opinion. *Involved Termination of Parental Rights*

In re Jessalina M., 315 Neb. 535, 997 N.W.2d 778 (2023). Signed majority opinion.  *Involved Termination of Parental Rights*

In re Denzel D., 314 Neb. 631, 992 N.W.2d 471 (2023) Signed majority opinion.  *Involved Termination of Parental Rights*