Supplemental Brief — Singleton v. Wulff

JUN 17 ivi

| gHCMAEL RODAK, JR..cLERK

IN THE u

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1974

No. 74-1393

THOMAS E. SINGLETON, Chief of Bureau of Medical Services, Division

of Welfare, State — of Public Health and Welfare,

etitioner,

VS.

GEORGE J. L. WULFF, JR., MD.

and

MICHAEL FREIMAN, W.D.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit

RESPONDENTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

In Opposition to “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit”

FRANK SUSMAN

SUSMAN, SCHERMER, WILLER & RIMMEL

7733 Forsyth Boulevard—Suite 1100

St. Louis, Missouri 63105

(314) 725-7300

Attorneys for Respondents

eee

St. Louis Law Printing Co., Inc., 812 Olive Street 63101 314-231-4477

SS

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Cases

Doe, et al. v. Bolton, et al., 410 U.S. 179 (1973) ........

Doe, et al. v. General Hospital of the District of Columbia,

et al., 313 F.Supp. 1170 (D.D.C. 1970), affirmed, 434

F.2d 423 (D.C.C. 1970), and affirmed, 434 F.2d 427

CRE Ee Rene esSeeeeeeceescccccccce:

Doe, et al. v. Hale Hospital, et al., 500 F.2d 144 (Ist Cir.

1974), cert. denied, 42 L.Ed.2d 837 (1975) ........

Doe v. Mundy, et al., 378 F. Supp. 731 (D. Wis. 1974),

affirmed without published opinion, 510 F.2d 976 (7th

DUPE CUP CREE Ra SEG sccccccceccecccccces

Doe, et al. v. Myatt, et al., — F.Supp. — (D.N.D., No. A3-

MC MEE cageccccsccccsoccccccecs

Doe, et al. v. Poelker, etc., et al., dismissed for lack of

standing, — F.Supp. — (E.D. Mo., No. 73CS565(A),

Mar. 22, 1974), reversed, 497 F.2d 1063 (8th Cir.

1974), dismissed on the merits, — F.Supp. — (E.D.

Mo., No. 73C565(A), Jan. 13, 1975), reversed on the

merits, — F.2d — (8th Cir., No. 75-1069, Apr. 14,

Ne ok sce c cece ccccees

Doe v. Rampton, et al., 366 F.Supp. 189 (D.Utah 1973)

Doe, et al. v. Rose, etc., 380 F.Supp. 779 (D. Utah 1973),

affirmed, 499 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1974) ..........

Doe, et al. v. Westby, et al., 383 F.Supp. 1143 (D.S.D.

1974), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 43

i eee e ce ec cccecccccscccese

Doe, et al. v. Wohlgemuth, et al., 376 F.Supp. 173 (W.D.

Penn. 1974), vacated and remanded on other grounds,

see F.ae 66 Gee Cie. 1974) ... 2... cece ccceeee

3-4

Klein, et al. v. Nassau County Medical Center, et al.,

347 F.Supp. 496 (E.D. N.Y. 1972), affirmed sub nom.

Ryan, etc. v. Klein, et al., 412 U.S. 924 (1973) .... 3

Nyberg, et al. v. The City of Virginia, et al., 495 F.2d 1342

(8th Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 42 L.Ed. 2d 136 (1974) 4

Orr, et al. v. Koefoot, et al., 377 F.Supp. 673 (D.Neb.

SOO cccccccscdesescases dates Canenbelocnseds 4

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, et al. v. Danforth,

et al.. — F.Supp. — (E.D. Mo., No. 74-416 (C)(A),

Jan. 31, 1975), stayed and enjoined, 43 L.Ed. 2d 389,

Sen, Gis See Ge SU oc ve weccccséisuccésdeceess 5

Roe, et al. v. Ferguson, 389 F.Supp. 387 (S.D. Ohio

1974), — F.2d — (6th Cir., No. 74-2195, April 28,

SPEED scccccacdpdcccsensencessotsdereseneuaes 2,3

Roe, et al. v. Norton, et al., 380 F.Supp. 726 (D.Conn.

SPUD cncodeceésctcessceusceusstusscausseneoes 3

Roe, et al. v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) ............ 4

Santiago v. Colon, et al, — F.Supp. — (D.P.R., No.

Pees GD, BG Te ov cts cundsencscudessnaees 4

Word, et al. v. Poelker, etc., et al., dismissed on ground

of absention, — F.Supp. — (E.D.Mo., No. 73C533

(2), Oct. 4, 1973), reversed on the merits, 495 F.2d

UD UO Gk SI hic vs dick ncekascacseeen, 4

Wulff, et al. v. Singleton, 380 F.Supp. 1137 (E.D. Mo.

1974), 508 F.2d 1211 (8th Cir. 1974) .......... 2, 3,4

Statute

28 U.S.C., Section 2281

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1974

No. 74-1393

THOMAS E. SINGLETON, Chief of Bureau of Medical Services, Division

of Welfare, State — of Public Health and Welfare,

titioner,

vs

GEORGE J. L. WULFF, JR, M.D.,

and

MICHAEL FREIMAN, M.D.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

for the Eighth Circuit

RESPONDENTS’ SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

In Opposition to “Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit”

Respondents, GEORGE J. L. WULFF, JR., M.D., and

MICHAEL FREIMAN, M_D., respectfully submit this supple-

mental brief in direct opposition to “Petitioner's Supplemental

Brief”, served upon respondents this sixth day of June, 1975.

=

Respondents suggest that the new and additional ground ad-

vanced by petitioner for the granting by this Honorable Court

of petitioner’s Writ of Certiorari (based upon an alleged con-

flict of decisions between the circuit courts of appeal in Wulff,

et al. v. Singleton, 508 F.2d 1211 [8th Cir. 1974] and Roe, et al.

v. Ferguson, — F.2d — [6th Cir., No. 74-2195, April 28,

1975}) lacks merit and is premised upon a misreading and mis-

application of the latter holding. (A copy of the, as yet unre-

ported, decision in Roe, supra, has been appended to petitioner's

supplemental brief and page references herein to Roe, supra,

are to said appendix page numbers. )

Wulff, supra, and Roe, supra, appear at first blush to contain

common elements of facts and circumstances; but, in fact, their

procedural and legal groundings are dramatically opposite and

conflicting. The resulting opinions are confluent and not con-

trary.

Plaintiffs’ complaint in Wulff, supra, challenged the statute

solely upon grounds of constitutional infirmities (Wulff, supra,

at p. 1212). Plaintiffs’ complaint in Roe, supra, challenged the

statute both upon grounds of constitutional infirmities and upon

grounds of conflicts with federal legislation (Roe, supra, at p.

A-3).

The district court proceedings in Wulff, supra, were before a

three-judge panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C., Section 2281 (Wulff,

supra, 380 F.Supp. 1137 [E.D.Mo. 1974]), while the district

court proceedings in Roe, supra, were before a single district

court judge (Roe, supra, 389 F.Supp. 387 [S.D. Ohio 1974]).

The appellate court in Roe, supra, while disagreeing with the

appellate court in Wulff, supra, as to whether “the unconstitu-

tionality of this type of statute is so ‘obvious and patent’ as to ob-

viate the need for a three-judge court” (Roe, supra, at p. A-10)

merely remanded for convening of a three-judge panel; inasmuch

=

as the district judge had previously determined “that the con-

stitutional claim is not frivolous nor insubstantial” (Roe, supra,

at p. A-11). As the appellate court noted, “the issue of substan-

tiality is one to be determined in the first instance by the district

judge in whose court the complaint is filed” (Roe, supra, at p.

A-11).

Respondents respectfully suggest that the only conflict that

may exist, if any. is between the appellate court in Wulff, supra,

and the district court judge in Roe, supra, as to substantiality of

the claim. Even if the appellate court decision in Roe, supra,

may be construed to be at odds with the appellate court decision

in Wulff, supra, as to the substantiality of the constitutional

claim, this is not the nature of circuit conflict which merits

consideration by this Honorable Court. The circuit panels may

also be interpreted as disagreeing on the propriety of deciding

the constitutional merits on appeal; but this is a matter of appel-

late discretion based upon the then prevailing circumstances and

factors.

The appellate court in Wulff, supra, painstakingly and cor-

rectly set forth the principles which prompted it to decide the

case on the merits (Wulff, supra, at pp. 1214-1215). The ap-

pellate court in Wulff, supra, had before it the identical and the

unanimous line of decisions in Klein, et al. v. Nassau County

Medical Center, et al., 347 F.Supp. 496 (E.D. N.Y. 1972),

affirmed sub nom. Ryan, etc. v. Klein, et al., 412 U.S. 924

(1973), Doe, et al. v. Rose, etc., 380 F.Supp. 779 (D. Utah

1973), affirmed, 499 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir. 1974), Doe v.

Rampton, et al., 366 F.Supp. 189 (D.Utah 1973), Doe, et al v.

Wohlgemuth, et al., 376 F.Supp. 173 (W.D.Penn. 1974), va-

cated and remanded on other grounds, 505 F.2d 186 (3rd Cir.

1974), Roe, et al. v. Norton, et al., 380 F.Supp. 726 (D.Conn.

1974) and Doe, et al. v. Westby, et al., 383 F.Supp. 1143

(D.S.D. 1974), vacaied and remanded on other grounds, 43

—

L.Ed. 2d 648 (1975). Since the appellate court opinion in

Wulff, supra, on December 31, 1974, one additional case reach-

ing the identical conclusion was decided (Doe, et al. v. Myatt,

et al., — F.Supp. — [D.N.D., No. A3-74-48, Jan. 27, 1975).

In addition, the appellate court had before it a host of public

hospital cases, which although presenting a slightly different

factual context, all unanimously supported the identical, equal

protection issue on abortion, as decided in Wulff, supra. (See,

e.g.: Doe, et al. v. General Hospital of the District of Columbia,

et al., 313 F.Supp. 1170 [D.D.C. 1970], affirmed, 434 F.2d 423

[D.C.C. 1970], and affirmed, 434 F.2d 427 [D.D.C. 1970},

Nyberg, et al. v. The City of Virginia, et al., 495 F.2d 1342

(8th Cir. 1974], cert. denied, 42 L.Ed. 2d 136 [1974]; Doe, et

al. v. Hale Hospital, et al., 500 F.2d 144 [ist Cir. 1974], cert.

denied, 42 L.Ed.2d 837 [1975]; Doe v. Mundy, et al., 378 F.

Supp. 731 [D. Wis. 1974], affirmed without published opinion,

510 F.2d 976 [7th Cir. 1975]; Santiago v. Colon, et al., —

F.Supp. — [D.P.R., No. 74-362, Aug. 6, 1974]; and Orr, et al.

v. Koefoot, et al., 377 F.Supp. 673 [D.Neb. 1974}]).

Since the appellate court decision in Wulff, supra, one addi-

tional case reaching the identical conclusion was decided (Doe,

et al. v. Poelker, etc., et al., — F.2d — [8th Cir., No. 75-1069,

Apr. 14, 1975]).

Lastly, bearing upon the appellate court’s decision was the

continuing irreparable harm to respondents’ indigent patients,

particularly in light of the history of abortion litigation within

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Mis-

souri, Eastern Division, subsequent to Roe, et al. v. Wade, 410

U.S. 113 (1973) and Doe, et al. v. Bolton, et al., 410 US.

179 (1973). See, e.g.: Word, et al. v. Poelker, etc., et al.

{municipal regulation of abortion clinics], dismissed on ground

of absention, — F.Supp. — [E.D.Mo., No. 73C533(2), Oct.

4, 1973], reversed on the merits, 495 F.2d 1349 [8th Cir. 1974];

ant

Doe, et al. v. Poelker, etc., et al. [public hospitals’ prohibition on

abortion], dismissed for lack of standing, — F.Supp. — [E.D.

Mo., No. 73C565(A), Mar. 22, 1974], reversed, 497 F.2d 1063

[8th Cir. 1974], dismissed on the merits, — F.Supp. — [E.D.

Mo., No. 73C565(A), Jan. 13, 1975], reversed on the merits,

— F.2d — [8th Cir., No. 75-1069, Apr. 14, 1975]. The present

cause was dismissed for lack of standing, 780 F.Supp. 1137

{[E.D.Mo. 1974] and reversed on the merits at 508 F.2d 1211

[8th Cir. 1974]. Subsequently there has been the experience of

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri, et al. v. Danforth, et

al. (upholding constitutionality of state statute], — F.Supp. —

{E.D. Mo., No. 74-416 (C) (A), Jan. 31, 1975], stayed and en-

joined, 43 L.Ed. 2d 389, No. A-656, Feb. 18, 1975).

Under all of the facts, circumstances, equities and law, duly

considered by the appellate court herein below, it acted correctly

and properly.

Accordingly, respondents respectfully pray that petitioner's

“Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit” be denied forthwith.

Respectfully submitted,

FRANK SUSMAN

SUSMAN, SCHERMER, WILLER &

RIMMEL

7733 Forsyth Boulevard—Suite 1100

St. Louis, Missouri 63105

(314) 725-7300

Attorneys for Respondents

Certificate of Service

I, the undersigned attorney for respondents and a member of

the bar of the United States Supreme Court, do hereby certify

that pursuant to Supreme Court Rule No. 33 I have caused to be

served true and correct copies of the foregoing “Respondents’

Supplemental Brief in Opposition to ‘Petition for a Writ of Cer-

tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth

Circuit’ ” upon each party required to be so served, by depositing

said copies in a United States Postal Service mail box, with first

class postage prepaid and affixed, addressed to The Honorable

John C. Danforth, Attorney General of the State of “Missouri,

Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 and

to Mr. Michael L. Boicourt, Assistant Attorney General of the

State of Missouri, Supreme Court Building, Jefferson City, Mis-

souri 65101, Attorneys for Petitioner, all this sixth day of June,

1975.

FRANK SUSMAN

SUSMAN, SCHERMER, WILLER &

RIMMEL

7733 Forsyth Boulevard—Suite 1100

St. Louis, Missouri 63105

(314) 725-7300