McCorvey v. Hill

Last updated
McCorvey v. Hill
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Full case nameNorma McCorvey, formerly known as Jane Roe v. Bill Hill
DecidedSeptember 14, 2004
Citation(s)385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004)
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Edith H. Jones, Jacques L. Wiener Jr., Edward C. Prado
Case opinions
MajorityJones
ConcurrenceJones

McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004), [1] was a case in which the original litigant in Roe v. Wade , [2] Norma McCorvey, also known as 'Jane Roe', requested the overturning of Roe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that McCorvey could not do this; the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari on February 22, 2005, [3] rendering the opinion of the Fifth Circuit final. The opinion for the Fifth Circuit was written by Judge Edith Jones, who also filed a concurrence to her opinion for the court.

Contents

Facts of the case

McCorvey - who, since Roe, had become an anti-abortion activist - sought to have Roe overturned based on her rights as an original litigant. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a litigant to file for relief from judgment, under defined circumstances. VII FRCP 60b. However, the same rule requires that "[t]he motion shall be made within a reasonable time"; the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the time elapsed since Roe (in excess of thirty years) was too great for McCorvey to now file.

Opinion of the court

The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling of the district court. Judge Jones, writing for a three judge panel, noted that, of the objections brought by Norma McCorvey on appeal, none held up; the district court acted properly.

Concurrence

Judge Jones also filed a separate concurrence, in which she expressed further views. She wrote, "It is ironic that the doctrine of mootness bars further litigation of this case", writing that the Supreme Court discarded the question of mootness (and, for that matter, standing) in order to decide Roe in the first place. Accord Roe, supra, at 171-2 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); cf. id. at 124-5. Jones noted a substantial body of evidence offered by McCorvey in support of her case, but noted that the actions of the Supreme Court in Roe had created an environment where those materials could never be discussed to any effect. Roe could not be challenged in court (nor, effectively, in the legislatures) because:

[U]nless it creates another exception to the mootness doctrine, the Court will never be able to examine its factual assumptions on a record made in court. Legislatures will not pass laws that challenge the trimester ruling adopted in Roe (and retooled as the 'undue burden' test in Planned Parenthood v. Casey ). No 'live' controversy will arise concerning this framework. Consequently, I cannot conceive of any judicial forum in which McCorvey's evidence could be aired...[B]ecause the Court's rulings have rendered basic abortion policy beyond the power of our legislative bodies, the arms of representative government may not meaningfully debate McCorvey's evidence.(Citations omitted)

Jones concluded:

The perverse result of the Court's having determined through constitutional adjudication this fundamental social policy, which affects over a million women and unborn babies each year, is that the facts no longer matter...That the Court's constitutional decisionmaking [ sic ] leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about the abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the Court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication.

Related Research Articles

Mootness Legal term on the status of a matter

The terms moot and mootness are used in both in English and American law, although with different meanings.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction. The decision struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws. Roe fueled an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

Norma McCorvey Plaintiff in Roe v. Wade (1947–2017)

Norma Leah Nelson McCorvey, also known by the pseudonym "Jane Roe", was the plaintiff in the landmark American legal case Roe v. Wade in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1973 that individual state laws banning abortion were unconstitutional.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court decision on upholding a Missouri law that imposed restrictions on the use of state funds, facilities, and employees in performing, assisting with, or counseling an abortions. The Supreme Court in Webster allowed for states to legislate in an aspect that had previously been thought to be forbidden under Roe v. Wade (1973).

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the abortion law of Georgia. The Supreme Court's decision was released on January 22, 1973, the same day as the decision in the better-known case of Roe v. Wade.

Edith Jones American judge

Edith Hollan Jones is a United States Circuit Judge and the former Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

<i>Muth v. Frank</i>

Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the denial to an individual of a writ of habeas corpus for violation of Wisconsin's laws criminalizing incest was not unconstitutional. The petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas invalidating anti-sodomy laws two years prior, which the Seventh Circuit rejected.

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, appealed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of LeRoy Carhart that struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Also before the Supreme Court was the consolidated appeal of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had struck down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Fortunato Benavides American judge

Fortunato Pedro Benavides is a Senior United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. His chambers are in Austin, Texas.

Linda Coffee American lawyer

Linda Nellene Coffee is an American attorney living in Dallas, Texas. Coffee is best known, along with Sarah Weddington, for arguing the precedent-setting United States Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade.

Jerry Edwin Smith American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

James L. Dennis is a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, with chambers in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court decided on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had struck down similar laws. Other states with similar laws may also be impacted.

June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that a Louisiana state law placing hospital-admission requirements on abortion clinics doctors was unconstitutional. The law mirrored a Texas state law that the Court found unconstitutional in 2016 in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (WWH).

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Montana law permitting only licensed physicians to perform abortions. The Court summarily reversed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that had held that the law was likely intended to inhibit abortion access. In a per curiam opinion, a majority of the Court found that there was no evidence that the Montana legislature acted with an invalid intent. The Court also reiterated its earlier holding in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that the states have broad flexibility to regulate abortion so long as their regulations do not create an undue burden on a woman's right to choose. Three dissenting justices, in an opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote that they would have declined to hear the case because proceedings were still pending in the lower courts. The law itself was later struck down by the Montana Supreme Court on state-constitutional grounds, but the U.S. Supreme Court's decision has nonetheless had a significant impact on modern American abortion jurisprudence.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is a pending U.S. Supreme Court case about the constitutionality of a 2018 Mississippi state law that bans most abortion operations after the first 15 weeks of pregnancy. Lower courts have prevented enforcement of the law with preliminary injunctions. The injunctions are based on the ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prevents states from banning abortion before fetal viability, generally within the first 24 weeks, on the basis that a woman's choice for abortion during that time is protected by rights of privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Texas Heartbeat Act 2021 Act of the Texas Legislature on abortion

The Texas Heartbeat Act is an act of the Texas Legislature that bans abortion after the detection of embryonic or fetal cardiac activity, which normally occurs after about six weeks of pregnancy. The law took effect on September 1, 2021, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request for emergency relief from Texas abortion providers. It is the first time a state has successfully imposed a six-week abortion ban since Roe v. Wade, and the first abortion restriction to rely solely on enforcement by private individuals through civil lawsuits, rather than having state officials enforce the law with criminal or civil penalties. The act authorizes members of the public to sue anyone who performs or facilitates an illegal abortion for a minimum of $10,000 in statutory damages per abortion, plus court costs and attorneys' fees.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detectable, which typically occurs around the sixth week of a pregnancy. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban, but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs or aids or abets a post-heartbeat abortion. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Texas was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. The Act is stated by its opponents to go against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which bans states from regulating abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. ↑ McCorvey v. Hill, 385F.3d846 (5th Cir.2004).
  2. ↑ Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
  3. ↑ Supreme Court docket 04-967
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.