|
|
Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997)
Lambert v. Wicklund No. 96-858 Decided March 31, 1997 520 U.S. 292
ON CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Montana’s Parental Notice of Abortion Act permits a court to waive the requirement that one parent be notified before a minor has an abortion if, inter alia, notification is not in the minor’s beat interests. The Federal District Court declared the Act unconstitutional because the judicial bypass mechanism does not authorize waiver of the notice requirement whenever the abortion itself is in the minor’s best interest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, basing its conclusion entirely on its earlier decision that Nevada’s identical bypass requirement was inconsistent with Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502.
Held: The Act’s judicial bypass provision sufficiently protects a minor’s right to an abortion. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary is in direct conflict with this Court’s precedents. The principal opinion in Bellotti explained the four criteria that a parental consent statute bypass provision must meet to be constitutional, and this Court explicitly held that the Ohio statute at issue in Akron met the second Bellotti requirement: that the minor be allowed to show that the desired abortion would be in her best interests. The Ohio statute was indistinguishable in any relevant way from the statute at issue here, and, thus, the Montana law also meets the second Bellotti requirement. Akron’s context, the Ohio statute’s language, and Akron’s concurring opinion all make clear that requiring a minor to show that parental notification is not in her best interests is equivalent to requiring her to show that abortion without notification is in her best interests. Contrary to respondents’ argument, the Montana statute does not draw a distinction between requiring a minor to show that parental notification is not in her best interests and requiring her to show that an abortion (without notification) is in her best interests, and respondents cite no Montana state court decision suggesting that the statute permits a court to separate these questions.
Certiorari granted; 93 F.3d 567 reversed.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997) in 520 U.S. 292 520 U.S. 293. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RMD8JBY2MIWQTEY.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997), in 520 U.S. 292, page 520 U.S. 293. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RMD8JBY2MIWQTEY.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997). cited in 1997, 520 U.S. 292, pp.520 U.S. 293. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=RMD8JBY2MIWQTEY.
|