Gonzales v. Carhart
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article documents an ongoing lawsuit. Information may change rapidly as the suit progresses. |
| Gonzales v. Carhart | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States |
|||||||||||
| Argued November 8, 2006 |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| Holding | |||||||||||
| Awaiting decision of the Court. | |||||||||||
| Court membership | |||||||||||
| Chief Justice: John Roberts Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito |
|||||||||||
| Case opinions | |||||||||||
| Laws applied | |||||||||||
| U.S. Const. amend. V; Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act | |||||||||||
Gonzales v. Carhart is a United States Supreme Court case brought before the Court for oral arguments on November 8, 2006. This case involves the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.[1] U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit striking down this statute. Also before the Supreme Court is the companion case of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood on appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which also struck down the statute.
This case may lead to reversal or affirmation of Stenberg v. Carhart (2000), in which the Court dealt with similar issues. Like Stenberg did, the present case deals with pre-viability second trimester abortions, whereas most abortions occur during the first trimester. Unlike Stenberg, however, the plaintiffs in the present case argue that the type of abortion at issue is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (applicable to the federal government) instead of the Fourteenth Amendment (applicable to the states).
Contents |
[edit] History of case
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 5, 2003, and immediately challenged. Three different U.S. district courts, the Northern District of California in Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft,[2] the Southern District of New York in National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft,[3] and the District of Nebraska in Carhart v. Gonzales[4] declared the law unconstitutional. All three cited the law's omission of an exception for the health of the woman, and all three decisions cited precedent set by Roe v. Wade (1973) and Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).
The federal government appealed the district court rulings, first bringing Carhart v. Gonzales before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The panel unanimously upheld the ruling of the Nebraska court on July 8, 2005. Finding that the government offered no "new evidence which would serve to distinguish this record from the record reviewed by the Supreme Court in Stenberg," they held that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception for the health of the woman.[5]
Attorney General Gonzales petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Eighth Circuit decision on September 25, 2005. Meanwhile, the Ninth Circuit also found the law unconstitutional,[6] as did the Second Circuit (with a dissent),[7] issuing their opinions on January 31, 2006. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the Carhart case on February 21, 2006,[8] and agreed to hear the companion Planned Parenthood case on June 19, 2006.[9]
[edit] Oral arguments
Oral arguments in this case (as well as its companion case) occurred on November 8, 2006. Arguments for the federal government were presented in this case by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, while arguments for Dr. Carhart et al. were presented by Priscilla Smith, and the full transcript is available from the Supreme Court's web site.[10] The oral arguments began at 10:05 AM.
In the companion case of Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, arguments for the federal government were also presented by U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. Arguments for Planned Parenthood were presented by Eve Gartner, and the full transcript is available from the Supreme Court's web site.[11] The oral arguments in the companion case began at 11:08 AM.
The Supreme Court has also made available audio of the oral arguments, in both Carhart[12] as well as Planned Parenthood.[13]
[edit] References
- ^ Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
- ^ Planned Parenthood v. Ashcroft, Order Granting Permanent Injunction, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support Thereof, United States District Court for the Northern District of California (June 1, 2004)
- ^ National Abortion Federation v. Ashcroft, Opinion and Order, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (August 26, 2004)
- ^ Carhart v. Ashcroft, Memorandum and Order, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska (September 8, 2004)
- ^ Gonzales v. Carhart, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (July 8, 2005)
- ^ Planned Parenthood Federation v. Gonzalez, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (January 31, 2006)
- ^ National Abortion Federation v. Gonzalez, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (January 31, 2006)
- ^ Supreme Court Docket, Gonzales v. Carhart (No. 05-380), providing copies of briefs, courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ Supreme Court Docket, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (No. 05-1382), providing copies of briefs, courtesy of Findlaw.com.
- ^ Transcript of Oral Arguments, Gonzales v. Carhart (November 8, 2006), via U.S. Supreme Court web site.
- ^ Transcript of Oral Arguments, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (November 8, 2006), via U.S. Supreme Court web site.
- ^ Audio and Transcript of Oral Arguments, Gonzales v. Carhart (November 8, 2006) via Oyez web site
- ^ Audio and Transcript of Oral Arguments, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (November 8, 2006) via Oyez web site
[edit] External Links
- Alexi Wright and Ingrid T. Katz Roe versus Reality — Abortion and Women's Health, New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 355, pages 1-9 (July 6, 2006) (perspective from opponents of the PBA statute).
- American Center for Law and Justice (group defending PBA statute provides info including links to media coverage).
- "Fighting to Protect Women's Health", Center for Reproductive Rights (group opposing PBA statute provides timeline of case).
