Supreme Court rejects state’s bid to revive
parental consent law for minors’ abortions
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will not hear a case involving a push to revive a law that minors must have their parents’ permission for an abortion in Montana, where voters have enshrined the right to abortion in the state’s constitution.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the Republican-led state seeking to overturn a Montana Supreme Court ruling that struck down the law. The parental consent law passed in 2013 but was blocked in court and never took effect before it was invalidated last year.
Montana state leaders say that decision violated parents’ rights.
“The right that Montana seeks to vindicate here — parents’ right to know about, and participate in, their child’s medical decisions — falls well within the core of parents’ fundamental rights,” state attorneys argued in court documents.
Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say the high court’s denial to take up the case was about its technical legalities rather than rejection of the state’s argument.
Planned Parenthood argued that the Montana Supreme Court decision balanced the rights of parents and of minors in a state that has protected the right to abortion. Montana’s highest recognized a right to abortion before the Supreme Court overturned it nationwide, and voters also enshrined it in the Montana Constitution last year.
“Petitioners seek to use the parental right as a cudgel against a minor’s rights,” the group wrote. “The broader interests of the child must be accounted for along with parental rights.”
The law would require notarized, written consent for people younger than 18 to get an abortion. It would also allow minors to petition judges for permission, a process known as judicial bypass. Montana also has another law in place requiring parents be notified of minors’ abortions.
More than two dozen states require parents consent to abortions for minors, though the laws have also been blocked in California and New Mexico, according to data gathered by KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care issues. Twelve more states require parental notification, though three of those laws are also blocked in court.
The justices rebuffed an appeal from the Republican-led state seeking to overturn a Montana Supreme Court ruling that struck down the law. The parental consent law passed in 2013 but was blocked in court and never took effect before it was invalidated last year.
Montana state leaders say that decision violated parents’ rights.
“The right that Montana seeks to vindicate here — parents’ right to know about, and participate in, their child’s medical decisions — falls well within the core of parents’ fundamental rights,” state attorneys argued in court documents.
Two conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, wrote separately to say the high court’s denial to take up the case was about its technical legalities rather than rejection of the state’s argument.
Planned Parenthood argued that the Montana Supreme Court decision balanced the rights of parents and of minors in a state that has protected the right to abortion. Montana’s highest recognized a right to abortion before the Supreme Court overturned it nationwide, and voters also enshrined it in the Montana Constitution last year.
“Petitioners seek to use the parental right as a cudgel against a minor’s rights,” the group wrote. “The broader interests of the child must be accounted for along with parental rights.”
The law would require notarized, written consent for people younger than 18 to get an abortion. It would also allow minors to petition judges for permission, a process known as judicial bypass. Montana also has another law in place requiring parents be notified of minors’ abortions.
More than two dozen states require parents consent to abortions for minors, though the laws have also been blocked in California and New Mexico, according to data gathered by KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care issues. Twelve more states require parental notification, though three of those laws are also blocked in court.
Supreme Court to consider reviving lawsuit
restricting evangelizing in small town
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court said Thursday it will consider whether to revive a lawsuit from a man barred from evangelizing outside a small-town Mississippi amphitheater after authorities say he shouted insults at people over a loudspeaker.
Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court.
Lower courts found he couldn’t file a civil-rights lawsuit because he’d been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn’t open either, effectively denying him a day in court.
The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren’t about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like “Jezebel,” “nasty,” and “drunkards” at people passing by.
The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated “protest zone,” and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group’s “desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.”
Olivier’s attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum.
“Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. “Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.”
The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
Gabriel Olivier, an evangelical Christian, says restricting him from public property violated his religious and free speech rights, but a legal Catch-22 has barred him from challenging the law in court.
Lower courts found he couldn’t file a civil-rights lawsuit because he’d been arrested, and instead needed to file under habeas corpus, a legal remedy open to prisoners. But because he was ticketed rather than imprisoned, his lawyers say that option wasn’t open either, effectively denying him a day in court.
The city of Brandon, Mississippi, on the other hand, says the restrictions aren’t about religious speech, but rather about limiting disturbances caused when he and his group yelled insults like “Jezebel,” “nasty,” and “drunkards” at people passing by.
The ordinance restricts demonstrations near the amphitheater but does allow him to preach from a designated “protest zone,” and has already survived another lawsuit, the city said. The city says the case is about Olivier and his group’s “desire to have their preferred method of protest, without regard for the rights or interests of anyone else.”
Olivier’s attorneys say he was engaging in respectful and protected speech at the time of his arrest, and the case centers on a key legal issue affecting free speech across the political spectrum.
“Every American has First Amendment rights to free speech; and every American has a right to their day in court,” said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO for First Liberty Institute, which is representing him along with attorney Allyson Ho of the firm Gibson Dunn. “Both of these rights were violated for Gabe Olivier. The Supreme Court will now decide whether those rights will be protected for all Americans.”
The court is expected to hear arguments in the fall.
