Court to hear abortion case, decides 5 cases
on May 23, 2005 at 9:57 am
The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide a long-unsettled issue of abortion law: the standard to be used in judging the constitutionality of a restriction on a women’s right to end a pregnancy. The question is whether such a restriction is to be upheld if there is any circumstance in which it could be applied constitutionally. The Court for some time has not followed that approach in abortion cases, but has never explicitly repudiated it. The working standard the Court has applied is whether a restriction, as written, would put a burden on the abortion rights of a significant number of women.
The issue arises in the case of Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (docket 04-1144). The case also raises the question whether a parental consent law for minors’ abortions must contain a health exception. At issue is such a law enacted in New Hampshire in 2003.
That is the only new case granted on Monday.
The Court, in the first decision of the day, ruled that it is unconstitutional to require an individual, appearing before a jury for a possible death sentence, to be restrained by shackles and handcuffs throughout the proceeding. The vote was 7-2 in the case of Deck v. Missouri (04-5293).
In the second decision, the Court upheld the constitutionality of Oklahoma’s semi-closed primary election system. Under that law, a political party may invite only its own registered members and voters registered as independents to cast votes in its primary. The majority was splintered, but the final outcome appeared to be supported in the main by a 6-3 majority. The decision came in Clingman v. Beaver (04-37).
In a third ruling, the Court upheld by a 6-3 vote the government’s power to assess a fee on producers of agricultural products to pay for advertising and promotion of the products, even when some assessed producers disagree with the message. The Court ruled that the so-called “beef checkoff” program is a form of “government speech,” and that it cannot be challenged as compelled private speech. The ruling came in the consolidated cases of Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (03-1164) and Nebraska Cattlemen v. Livestock Marketing Association (03-1165).
In a fourth decision, the Court unanimously clarified the proof that must be made to successfully challenge a government regulation as a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment “just compensation” clause. The Court decided that a property owner claiming a regulatory taking may allege a physical taking, or a land-use exaction.
The Court rejected the lower court view that a taking occurs if the regulation does not “substantially advance” a state interest. The Court said that the holding did not require the Court to disturb any of its prior takings jurisprudence. The case was Lingle v. Chevron (04-163).
In the final action on an argued case Monday, the Court dismissed as
“improvidently granted” a major test case on whether rulings by the World Court on American death penalty cases must be applied in U.S. courts. The Court said that a Mexican death row inmate in Texas, Jose Ernesto Medellin, may be able to get relief in a newly filed challenge in Texas state courts. The case is Medellin v. Dretke (04-5928). The vote was 5-4. The dissenters argued that the Court should either send the case back to the Fifth Circuit, or else keep the case itself and put it on hold until the new state court proceeding has been completed.
When the Medellin case proceeds in state court, it could set up a major test of the U.S. President’s power to order state courts to follow a World Court ruling, as President Bush has done in this case and others involving foreign nationals on death row in U.S. states. Texas officials already have said they think the President lacks that authority. The Court majority indicated today that the case perhaps would be taken up anew by the Justices after the state court proceeding has been decided.
