Hodgson v. Minnesota
| Hodgson v. Minnesota | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||
| Argued November 29, 1989 Decided June 25, 1990 |
|||||
| Full case name | Jane Elizabeth Hodgson, et al. v. Minnesota, et al. | ||||
| Citations | 497 U.S. 417 (more)
110 S. Ct. 2926; 111 L. Ed. 2d 344; 1990 U.S. LEXIS 3303; 58 U.S.L.W. 4957
|
||||
| Prior history | Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | ||||
| Court membership | |||||
|
|||||
| Case opinions | |||||
| Majority | Stevens (parts I, II, IV, VII), joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, O'Connor | ||||
| Concurrence | Stevens (part III), joined by Brennan | ||||
| Concurrence | Stevens (parts V, VI), joined by O'Connor | ||||
| Concurrence | O'Connor | ||||
| Concur/dissent | Marshall, joined by Brennan, Blackmun | ||||
| Concur/dissent | Scalia | ||||
| Concur/dissent | Kennedy, joined by Rehnquist, White, Scalia | ||||
| Dissent | Stevens (part VIII) | ||||
| Laws applied | |||||
| Minn. Stat. §§ 144.343(2)-(7) (1988) | |||||
Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court abortion rights case that dealt with whether a state law may require notification of both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion. The law in question provided a judicial alternative.
Contents
Issue
The case concerned a Minnesota law. The law required notice to both parents of a minor before she could undergo an abortion; it also contained a judicial bypass provision designed to take effect only if a court found one to be necessary.[1] Dr. Jane Hodgson, a Minneapolis gynecologist, challenged the law. The Eighth Circuit had ruled that the law would be unconstitutional without a judicial bypass, but that the bypass provision saved it.[1]
The law made no allowance for the fact that half the children in Minnesota lived without both biological parents.[1]
Supreme Court Justice Positions
Justice O'Connor thought the two-parent requirement entailed risk to a pregnant teenager; she also said the rule failed to meet even the lowest standard of judicial review, a rationality standard.[1]
Justice Kennedy pointed out the usefulness of the bypass procedure, as judges granted all but a handful of requests to authorize abortions without parental notice.[1]
Opinion
There were five votes for each of two holdings.[1] O'Connor, Stevens, Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun formed a majority holding that the two-parent notice requirement was unconstitutional.[1] O'Connor joined the Court's conservatives, however, to form a majority for the law being valid with the judicial bypass. The conclusory ruling struck down the two-parent notification requirement, the majority citing an APA brief asserting that one-parent families are common in that state and that within the state, a minor often only needs one parent's permission for certain health needs; the rest of the statute, though, was voted constitutional because of its allowance for judicial bypass.
This case involved the first restriction on abortion that O'Connor voted to strike down.[1]
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 497
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Lists of United States Supreme Court cases by volume
- List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
References
External links
- Text of Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) is available from: Findlaw Justia
- OYEZ Project Hodgson v. Minnesota
