Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Email
Answers.com

Hodgson v. Minnesota

 
US Supreme Court: Hodgson v. Minnesota

497 U.S. 417 (1990), argued 29 Nov. 1989, decided 25 June 1990 by vote of 5 to 4 on one issue and 5 to 4 on another; Stevens announced judgment of Court on the first issue in an opinion joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, and O'Connor, from which Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Kennedy dissented; O'Connor concurring in result on second issue with Rehnquist, White, Scalia, and Kennedy. Hodgson, the Court's first confrontation with the abortion issue after its decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), indicated that substantially greater restrictions on abortions were constitutionally permissible. The case involved a statute requiring minors seeking abortions to notify both parents; a minor who obtained a court's determination that she was mature or that an abortion without notice to the parents was in her best interests could have an abortion.

A majority of the Court held that the two‐parent notification requirement was unconstitutional; it was not a reasonable method of assuring proper parental involvement in the abortion decision, given the large numbers of families in which the minor seeking abortion did not reside with both parents, often because the absent parent was physically abusive. The dissenters argued that a legislature could properly act with the majority of families in mind; in most families, notification of both parents would promote desirable consultation.

A different majority of the Court held that permitting minors to invoke a judicial “bypass” in lieu of parental notification was constitutional because it was “an expeditious and efficient means” to identify cases where notification of both parents would not be sound. The dissenters objected to requiring that minors disclose intimate personal details to a judge. Further, experience with the procedure showed that permission to obtain an abortion was almost never denied; however, obtaining permission burdened the minor's choice because of delays in scheduling hearings and difficulties in locating judges in rural areas who would make the necessary findings.

Hodgson was the first case in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to hold a restriction on the availability of abortions unconstitutional. The two‐parent notification requirement was quite unusual, however, and the implications of Hodgson may be quite limited.

See also Abortion; Privacy.

— Mark V. Tushnet

Search unanswered questions...
Enter a question here...
Search: All sources Community Q&A Reference topics
Wikipedia: Hodgson v. Minnesota
Top
Hodgson v. Minnesota

Supreme Court of the United States
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
Holding
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.[1]

This case involved the first restriction on abortion that O'Connor voted to strike down.[1]

See also

References

  • Text of Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990) is available from:  · Enfacto · Findlaw
  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i Greenhouse, Linda (2005), Becoming Justice Blackmun, Times Books, pp. 196-197 

 
 

 

Copyrights:

US Supreme Court. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States. Copyright © 1992, 2005 by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Hodgson v. Minnesota" Read more