Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

attorneystatuteappeal
attorneyinjunctionrespondent

Related Cases

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 106 S.Ct. 2841, 92 L.Ed.2d 140, 54 USLW 4919
View Case »
Epstiner v. Spears, 340 Ga.App. 199, 796 S.E.2d 919
View Case »
Stone v. Thompson, 428 S.C. 79, 833 S.E.2d 266
View Case »
Epstiner v. Spears, 340 Ga.App. 199, 796 S.E.2d 919
View Case »
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937, 3 Am.Ann.Cas. 1133
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 127 S.Ct. 1610, 167 L.Ed.2d 480, 75 USLW 4210, 07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4088, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5189, 20 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 180, 20 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 673

Facts

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was enacted following the Supreme Court's decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, which invalidated Nebraska's partial-birth abortion statute. The Act specifically targeted the intact dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedure, which allows for the extraction of a fetus largely intact. Several federal district courts ruled against the Act, citing its lack of a health exception and its vagueness, leading to appeals that culminated in the Supreme Court's review.

In No. 05–380, respondent abortion doctors challenged the Act's constitutionality on its face, and the Federal District Court granted a permanent injunction prohibiting petitioner Attorney General from enforcing the Act in all cases but those in which there was no dispute the fetus was viable.

Issue

Did the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 impose an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion, and was it void for vagueness?

Did the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 impose an unconstitutional burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion, and was it void for vagueness?

Rule

The Act's prohibition on the intact D & E procedure is not void for vagueness, and it does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to abortion based on its overbreadth or lack of a health exception.

The Act's prohibition on 'intact' dilation and evacuation (D & E) procedure is not void for vagueness on its face; most reasonable reading of terms of Act is that it does not sweep too broadly to include prototypical D & Es.

Analysis

The Supreme Court analyzed the text of the Act and determined that it specifically regulates the intact D & E procedure without broadly encompassing other abortion methods. The Court found that the Act provides clear guidelines for physicians and does not encourage arbitrary enforcement. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the Act's stated purposes align with the government's interest in protecting fetal life and the integrity of the medical profession.

The Act, on its face, is not void for vagueness and does not impose an undue burden from any overbreadth.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court rulings, holding that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is constitutional and does not impose an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Reversed.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the Attorney General, as the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.

The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that: Act furthered legitimate congressional purposes; and absence of health exception did not render Act facially unconstitutional.

You must be