Amicus Curiae Brief — Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Supreme Court brief1986

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

=e Ss.

No. 84-495 } Supreme Court, ©

In the Supreme Court of the United $tatds! b ED

October Term, 1984

; AUG Sey 1965

Richard Thornburgh, H. Arnold Mull

_ SPANIGL, JR.

, HELE mi crn

B. O'Bannon, Michael I. Browne, Willk

Davis, LeRoy S. Zimmerman, personally and

in their official capacities, and Joseph A.

Smyth, Jr., personally and in his official

capacity, together with all others

similarly Situated,

Appellants

Vv.

American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, Pennsylvania Section, Henry

H. Fetterman, M.D., Thomas Allen, M.D., and

Francis L. Hutchins, Jr., M.D. on behalf of

themselves and a.l others similarly

Situated; Allen J. Kline, D. 0O., on behalf

of himself and all others similarly

Situated; Brooxs R. Susman, Paul

Washington; Morgan P. Plant, on behalf of

herself and all others similarly situated;

Elizabeth Blackwell Health Center for

Women, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern

Pennsylvania; Reproductive Health and

Counseling Center; and Women's Health

Services., Inc.,

Appellees

On Appeal from the United States

Court of Appeals tor the Third Circuit

Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors

as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees

Denise Carty-Bennia Arthur Kinoy

Northeastern University Rutgers, Center for

School of Law Law and Justice

400 Huntington Avenue 15 Washington St.

Boston, MA 02115 Newark, NJ 07102

e...

i |

handled

—

— 2

—

— §

—_

—

benedhened

Counsel tor Amici Curiae

AMICI CURIAE

INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE AD HOC GROUP

Susan Bandes

DePaul University College of Law

Allan Brotsky

Golden Gate University School of Law

Robert Calhoun

Golden Gate University School of Law

Leonard Cavise

DePaul University College of Law

Debra Evenson

DePaul University College of Law

John G.S. Flym

Northeastern University School of Law

Sylvia Law

New York University School of Law

Stephanie Levin

Northeastern University School of Law

Christine Littleton

University of California at Los Angeles,

School or Law

Isabel Marcus

State University of New York at Buffalo,

School of Law

Eric Neisser

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

S.I. Newhouse Center for Law and Justice

Mary O'Connell

Northeastern Universit School of Law

Barbara Rhine

Golden Gate University School of Law

—

ICI CURIAE, cont.

James V. Rowan

Northeastern University School of Law

Annamay Sheppard

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

S.I. Newhouse Center for Law and Justice

Marc Sticxgold

Golden Gate University School of Law

Naaine Taub

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

S.I. Newhouse Center for Law and Justice

Gilaa M. Tuoni

Northeastern University School of Law

Stephanie Wildman

University of San Francisco, School of Law

Mary Joe Frug

New England School of Law

Judith Greenberg

New England School of Law

Isaac Borenstein

New England Schol of Law

Chris Williams

New England School of Law

Elizabeth K. Spann

New England School of Law

Karl Klare

Northeastern University School of Law

AMICI CURIAE, cont.

Ann E. Freedman

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

School of Law, Camden

Manuel Rodriguez-Orellana

Northeastern University School of Law

Jonathan M,. Hyman

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

S.I. Newhouse Center for Law and Justice

David Hall

Northeastern University School of Law

Donald H. Berman

Northeastern University School of Law

Daa — | 2420 case

Sgon en ii esl

e2g35 oHT .esppeekc: +

host wal fo seer. «

ip”

27). Ae eae

x A

soir: Soe anes Toe)

ange... 8) Ness ecoy

er oe ees ere, eee

et i i

at a? oa hy (7). «AY wrt <_

TO1EWA 4b Bi ri<4

SOLED RRR 9, Os

— a

Table or

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Peer ech eeuduanckaneuctencue i

Consent Or Hae es 6:6'0:400646-64204664060064Ke l

Interest

Introduction anda Summary of Argument

Argument:

Il.

Iil.

Conciusio

of Amici SES Pe eS enn 2

ceocccce 3

Traagitional principles of finality

of judgements under 28 U.S.C.

§1254(2) require dismissal of the

appeal of part of an interlocutory

Order issuea by the Circuit Court

of Appeals in Thornburgh...........6

The supervening enactment of

Pennsylvania Orphans' Court Rule

16 requires vacating, as moot, the

appeal from that portion of the

Circuit Court of Appeal's Order in

Thornburgh enjoining the enforcement

of $3206 of the Pennsylvania

Abortion Control Act on Parental

Consent or Judicial Approval for

WS 46 64664066 666668666 6666 66 6 6 B98

The lack of an Article III §2 live

case or controversy in Diamond

requires this Court to dismiss the

GN Sd 0466 0N 6 566646 6b 66 sek ciccedt

TRE Le UP RS EEL CGP CTT TPS Pee ee ee eee CE

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive

Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983)..... ococeS, 6, 23

Allen v. Wright, U.S. __, 104 S.ct. 3315

STE OEP GGh ONS 0004460066008 00008 eeeeeee 33

American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, et al. vy. Thornburgh, et al.,

737 F.2d 283 (3rd Cir. 1984)........ 7, passim

Attwell v. Nichols, 608 F.2d 228 (5th Cir.

1979) cert denied 446 U.S. 955 (1980)...... 20

Beal v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977)........... 3

Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976)...... 3

Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622 (1979)...... 3

Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991 (1982)...... 36

Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357

DPR PERE BO OENUEEES 66 dnb d6660n006000¢e0ecc 28

Brooks v. Flagg Brothers, Inc., 436 U.S.

149 (1978).........4. e*eeneeeee eeneeeeeeseeeeseeee#eees. 36

Brown, et al. v. United States, 4ll U.S.

£8) o)) ae Se Pr ee 34

City of Chicago v. Rapid Transit Co., 284

ee Cee ee ee de cag oc akeéine 30

Chicago v. Atchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 357

Dae OF BEENGtas deco se ebb Gs 6606606606606 )

Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379

PPT eTERCESVEGUERUEC ES HED ON cbs eEb OS ebdCcees 3

Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9

Coo arr oee66ee5eeeeeseeeees —

Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975)............20

DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312 (1974)..19

Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church,

Gee Webs Gas CASTaleacescasccnccwessececaes, 29

Director, Office of Worker's Compensation

Programs v. Perini North River Assocs.,

a fF ® ee 103 Bebe 634 | Ge

Doran v. Salem Inn Inc., 422 U.S. 922

Dttié dss teehee Bee oe 66 6 66ke46 oes eee eee 9

El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S. 497 (1964)....9

Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v. Risjord,

Ga Wee Belle SE SCEPUES Seeccccesecsocecesoeke

Flanagan v. United States, U.S. ,

SG6 B.CE. 265k CAPSS vcccccce eeenceecees 16, 18

Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968).........3l

Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U.S. 379 (1975)...20

Gonzales v. Automatic Employees Credit Union,

a was We Geol ee ec 60000 0es000e0e ane

Hall v. Beals, 396 U.S. 45 (1969)..........20

Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980)..... seed

Hill v. Printing Industries of Gulf Coast,

422 U.S. 937 ( DOT haAbeh ats boeken edAabeeeaneee

H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398 (1981).......3

7 *

‘ aa

. ;

) ?

7 i

;

7 _ 2

— ——

‘ y -

Aa a - >

1 : 7

» 2 sg

en -

« f

AAA

- - 4

—-

’

©, é

-s

‘

’

ie? C

» .

Holcombe v.McKusick, 61 U.S. 552 (1857)...10

Jackson v. Metroplitan Edison, 419 U.S.

345 RN FE LEE 5 LSE IE

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath,

FEE Gels BES LOSER Pacccne eoccccccccccccccc ce

Keith v. Daley and Illinois Pro-Life

Coalition, No. 84-2860, Slip op. at ll

(7th Circuit Court of Appeals, June 18,

BOOED eccececocvcscoseceessesecesececes eocecee 36

Kremens v. Bartley, 431 U.S. 119 (1977)....20

Linda R.S. v. Richard D. et al., 410 U.S.

614 ih ee ee ee

Liner v. Jafeo, Inc., 375 U.S. 3C1

ERTS OGHE GEER SSSO CECE OSES Oe OE CORE OCOCOS 19

Lugar v. Edmonson Oil Co., Inc., 457

Bas CEn CEE iececocss ececeseeeceesooes 17, 36

Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464 (1977)........2..23

McLish v. Roff, 141 U.S. 661 (1891)........13

Metcalfe's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 1193

{ & Sp) ) ree oeeees TT TTTITTITTE 10

New Orleans v. Dukes, 426 U.S. 297

aR ang gga ie aa e*eweee#ee#ee#s¢ sank te eh as len

Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981).....27

Perry Education Association v. Perry Local

Educator's Association, 460 U.S.

37 th thes oe hae oe eo e*eeee#eee Sa al ia a

Planned Parenthood Association v. Ashcroft,

Gee Gale See Cammelsececncesces aaaceunats We oe

Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v.

Pn. Ce Wo, BE Che Fel ccccccccceveccecce 3

Preiser v. Newkirk, 42 U.S. 395 (1975)..... 20

Princeton University v. Schmid, 455 U.S.

1UU FEE a, 29, 30

Rakas v. Illiois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978)...... 33

Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 (1980)...33

Regents of University of California v.

i. Ge Wills BOS ChOTOb ccccoccceccececs oe |

2 a. is Ce ie, Bae CRP abececoceesece 3

Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare

Organisation, 426 U.S. 26 (1976) .cccccccecss 33

Simopoulos v. Virginia, 462 U.S. 506

ji | errr ee ee 4, 6

Slaker v. O'Conner, 278 U.S. 188

t. ) PS Prrrrrryry ey rrTrTrTrrTrrrerserrrrTe esceses soe

South Carolina Electric and Gas Co. v.

Flemming, 351 U.S. 901 (1956) (per

curiam) e*e*e ee#eeeee#*ee#eee#eesrhfeee#e#ee#e#e#kfeee#e#e#ee#ee#e#e#e#e#e##e######e## # # @ 4

United Building and Construction v. Council

or Camden, U.S. _, 104 S.Ct. 1020

TEETER UE SES GEC SU COS ESSE SSS S ECO CC CCE COS OCS 25

United Steelworkers of America v. United

States, 361 U.S. 39 (1959)........... ooccces®

United States v. Alabama, 396 U.S. 602

Dienst heebosécebsbsebéececes =. oe *eeneteeeee? 20

United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S.

113 ie es ee ek e*eeeeeee#es 28

ate

—_

: 4

Unitea States v. Girault, 52 U.S. 22

ee oe a ee nw 8 ww @ se eee eeee#e#e#e#e##Hee##ee##e####* # # 10

Unitea States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S.

38 ee wo *ensneteee#e *eneeneti_eneee © @ 24

United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727

SSS TT TCC TERETE TTT 33

U.S. Parole Commission, et al. v. Geraghty,

445 U.S. 388 ET |

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans

Unitea tor Separation of Church and State,

i i i MDs ck ceeececccecoceccces Bue 22

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan

Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252

Te ceccee eoeneeeee#e¢ 31

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975)....... 31

White v. Regester, 422 U.S. 935

cee e*eeneeee#e#ee#see#ee#e 25

Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S.

547 Te ee 8k 8 « g ero? #88 @ e*eee#e#eeseswhee#se#se##*# éeaa

United States Constitution and United States

Statutes ?

United States Constitution,

Article III Deh e hehe keeeece *eeee#ee#ee. *eeneeee#e# 25

ll United States Constitution,

Amendment Die hen ae ee eeee ¢ e*enre*ee#ererfees3qee#8e#e#8# @ 33

28 U.S.C. $1254(2) (1964)..............10, 13

iva

a © * e f up

) ; 4

. @

» a

; Ps “ a

: ee - be | Sood

; -d s &

e yy

= er

| SE LA ee a A

: ee Tl

if ‘ : er “sal Pe o4.

bs, ene a . -s “ yp er

7 : j

’ : 4 == }

: 7 ica as Sl

~ a -_ 2 « -

# — pa | : me See ae

~ a rf i a 4 > 1 4c4

> —_ a

: -¥

.~= &,*

} P : : -<

: i)

i - CF oa

¢ ‘ Dona . ‘ =>

- ning =r) ak ome

2 :

\‘_ — ‘is a * ina tow

j lie 4. ———

4 )

: ae A424 * & 453i ie

| ‘ 7 | 4 we

a 7

a .

\ t, A

a 2 = icra

: , i S| V2 5 } +

; ee <. pe

a 4 rw. ao aed

; 5 ~

! ote Se GS

< P . a S

J r ri @ 4s eu ry!

3 a/i| #60455

% * a . ale.

a iy ee 4 ation Sint

. 2

‘ 6 a oD ny a i

= ‘7 ~~ j ai, _ an © ova S od R s

26 G0.8.C. GAiZS7T(ad (197O). cece Stee evesteesee

28 U.S.C. §2281 (repealed 1976)............15

28 U.S.C. $2282 (repealed 1976)....... TTTT |.

38 @.6.6. GB6GS CASTS). cccccsese beoeeen secescene

Act of February 13, 15925, Ch. 229, 43

Stat. LS Pe eee Pee TT TTT TT ETT TT CTT. 13

Amended Judicial Code of 1925,

43 Stat. 936 §$240(b)......9, 10, 13, 15

Amended Judicial Code or 1925,

GB GERE. SST eo Bese eOdeoccciecs rrr rrr. |

Act of September 6, 1916 Ch. 448,

ae Geka Feoocceees be wondeeeb0e665066008 68 15

Act of August 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 1120...... 15

42 U.B.C. Gl9SS. . cccccccccvcccccccsecesceses

The Evarts Act of March 3, 1891, 26

26 Stat. nd 6:5 666666066 6066006660 0060080a6 15

First Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat.

Fee So BO Bese csc ccewtessdcenstecesccecoccck®

Feaeral Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)......35

State Statutes

Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982,

18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Am §§ 3201-3220

(PURER BOER) cc ccsccs sbecthwcsneete te S600

New Pennsylvania Orphans' Court

Rule ER es a nS ee

S.H.A. Ill. Ch. 38 §81-31 (Smith-Hurd Supp.

EE: a eG ee eee as

S.H.A. Ill. Ch. 38 §81-26 (Smith-Hurd Supp.

tt. ~tKi¢ddstecrddehied teens 6e6eh ene be bo hthst eee

S.H.A. Ill. Ch. 38 §81-11 to §81-34

CRS CRWERES GR. BOGS Pccccedecesecccececes 26

BookKs

Crick, Carleton M., The Final Judgement as

a Basis for Appeal, 4l Yale L.J. 539

Cau 660666 86.646008 0666 $00 066606660666606% 10

F.Frankfurter and J. Landis, The Business of

the Supreme Court, 273-278 (Johnson Reprint

Corp, N.Y. 1972)..... cennaeseeds eéeeeosetee a6

Articles

Blumstein, James F, The Supreme Court's

Jurisaiction - Retorm Proposals, Discretion-

ary Review, and Writ Dismissals, 26 Vand. L.

Ss We CE UEl 466 0b6 bob oSsiesosesoreosecedd

Simpson, John, Turning Over the Reins: The

Abolition ot The Mandatory Appellate

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court,

6 Hastings Const. L.Q. 297, 299 n.7

(Fall, 1976)... .ccceeeeeeeesccccees 33, &6, A?

vii

te” és ~ .

oa — a

L x ®

Pass

’

“—

ry,

= >

eee te

In the Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1985

No. 84-495

Richard Thornburgh, et al., Appeilants

Vv.

American College of Obstetricians and

Gynecologists, et al., Appellees

No. 84-1379

Eugene F. Diamond, et al., Appellants

Vv. |

Allan G. Charles, et al., Appellees

On Appeal From the United States Courts

of Appeals for the Third and Seventh Circuits

Brief for an Ad Hoc Group of Law Professors

As Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees

CONSENT OF PARTIES

Amici curiae file this brief with the

consent of all the parties in support of the

position advanced by the appellees.

7 5

eee ee ae

om,

‘

INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE

Amici Curiae are the individuals listed

who compose an ad hoc group of professors

teaching at various American law schools.

The group represents a cross section of views

ana diverse interests. Amici all recognize

the importance and emotional timbre of the

issues raised in this case. They, however,

believe that these issues should not be

resolved at the expense otf impugning the

integrity of the federal judicial process

Simply because of the zealousness and fervor

ourreundineg their public debate. Amici

recognize ana support the logical and orderly

procedural flow of litigation, as well as

adherence to ey Tey Poe requirements for

the exercise of appellate jurisdiction.

Amici, theretore, urge this Court to dismiss

these cases for lack of jurisdiction.

= ve

wae

' ‘ ifn ron)

ag A A A ‘ “

at ds ‘ tet 0

: ; ; a

7 , CU a a oi ee is

, i ; we my ee ley, Tee

' ‘a L- ae a : 7 : w=A La a aed -

ys = A -

e . = ’ a] » a : - -

har 5 i, : ‘

" ad —

— |e

“@ i a t= : ; bg

> ‘ _

7 " * = q Pos | ns

a 7 i] . >

‘all i 4 - J @ Z

i .

-_ F

‘

an » . a j a —_

) j

re . = fol 2 :

j e

on ' = e

fa > j j _ e 5 2 ,

. -

’ a — .—

a : te eo at SP

7 _ : —-

7 ~ * sd > ol Fs hy

: '

a =

be ; —e

7 - ¢

a ——_ ’ i : ¥. b)

= @t ef

i¢ 2

| .

7 fe ,

bay 5

ae 7 ' :

, ’ :

7 .

“

sd ~

im ¢ ad

‘

mh eo

ie be -

. ~

y -

ID me

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

More than a decade has passed since this

Court's land-mark decision in Roe v. Wade,

410 U.S. 113 (1973) (hereafter Roe)

articulated the fundamental constitutional

protection or a woman's right to obtain an

abortion. In the intervening years, this

Court consistently has reaffirmed its posi-

tion in a succession of cases challenging the

practical application of the tenets of

Roe.+ These two cases once more appear to

question this Court's strength of conviction

in its interpretation of Roe in several

1/see Connecticut v. Menillo, 423 U.S. 9

(1975); Plannea-Parenthood of Central

Missouri v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976);

Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U.S. 132 (1976); Beal

v. Doe, 432 U.S. 438 (1977); Maher v. Poe,

432 U.S. 464 (1977); Colautti v. Franklin,

439 U.S. 379 (1979); Bellotti v. Baird, 443

U.S. 622 (1979); Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S.

297 (1980); H.L. v. Matheson, 450 U.S. 398

(1981).

—- 7

Ase ee

= 4 ad)

—_—— igs

- ae oe

| | | 7 | ; ne - »

7 | |

aa - ‘

: ti

8 maayr oe

eee il

recent similar decisions.? This appear-

ance, however, is deceptive and illusionary.

Both of these cases are improperly before

this Court. Appellants have failed to satis-

fy fundamental requirements necessary for the

exercise of appellate jurisdiction by this

Court.

In Thornburgh, appellants, in their zeal,

seek to disrupt the logical and orderly

proceaural flow of litigation by having this

Court abandon the century long practice of

restricting review on appeal from a Circuit

Court of Appeals decision to only those cases

involving final judgements. In addition,

because ot intervening circumstances, that

specific part of the appeal seeking review of

the Parental Consent/Judicial Approval provi-

2/>)anned Parenthood Association v.

Ashcrott, 462 U.S. 476 (1983); Akron v. Akron

Center ror Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416

(1983); Simopoulos v. Virginia, 462 U.S. 506

(1983).

— we

oot

sions, $3206 of the Pennsylvania Abort:ion

Control Act of 1982, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Am.

§§3201-3220 (Purdon 1983) (hereafter the

“Pennsylvania Act") presently iS moot as a

matter of appellate review and ripe for

review by the District Court.

Similarly, in Diamond, there is no live

case or controversy tor the exercise of

federal judicial power. Appellants, District

Court intervenors, lack the requisite

standing necessary to bring the case to this

Court. The DiStrict Court order granting

appellants the right to intervene in the

first place is not dispositive of whether

they now have standing. None of the origi-

nally named party-defendants, governmental

officials representing the State of Illinois,

have filed an appeal or bdbeted appellants’

brief in this case. In fact, all of the

State representatives have been realigned as

appellees in the case before this Court.

— =

ees

a»

i¢%

: |

»*

; P

be >|

‘ ~

I. TRADITIONAL PRINCIPLES OF FINALITY OF

JUDGMENTS REQUIRE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL

UNDER 28 U.S.C. §1254(2) OF PART OF AN

INTERLOCUTORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE CIRCUIT

COURT OF APPEALS IN THORNBURGH

This case was brought to the Circuit

Court of Appeals on cross-appeals from a

District Court order, entered on a hastily

stipulated record, denying a substantial, but

not total, part of plaintiff's request for a

preliminary injunction of the Pennsylvania

Act. The case was twice briefed, as well as

orally argued. In between, this Court

announced its decisions in three factually

Similar cases, Planned Parenthood Association

v. Ashcroft, 462 U.S. 476 (1983), Akron v.

Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462

U.S. 416 (1983)and Simopoulos v. Virginia,

462 U.S. 506 (1983). Arter thoughtful and

methodical consideration, the Circuit Court

ort Appeals finally concluded that certain

ey ig

sections of the Pennsylania Act were uncon-

stitutional as a matter of law as written.

The original denial of the preliminary

injunction was reversed in part and the case

was remanded to the District Court "for

turther proceedings in accordance with [its]

opinion." American College of Obstetricians

and Gynecologists v. Thornburgh, 737 F.2d

283, 304 (3rd Cir. 1984). Judgement was not

enterea for the plaintiffs. Significant

parts of the Pennsylvania Act still require

District Court review during which both

plaintiffs and defendants may engage actively

in trial litigation by offering additional

evidence and legal arguments. The Common-

wealth of Pennsylvania has not appealed

certain issues but reserved them for further

litigation before the Distict Court. (E.g.

§3205(a)(2) of the Pennsylvania Act.) Since

the Circuit Court of Appeal's order, plain-

> ithe cial. Sip 4.

Ah ied FOR Vide | Yaniat #42 Fo BAGL ISHS |

? ar

SZ a be Se WEL ee 67a Pee Penulsne toes

. ier we ra ; ie ; : ‘ i rary Lah - AAS

, =

eee

a 7 . - ;

Tare — ie au rh JC Shr eae yay vary

—

= 2 . in = 2 a, rn yf nia

, : “

' iat vane

2 al -

——

F eo Wy

[ =

. »

‘ -

-_— *

. -

~. o P

‘

a Ps , |

- =

‘

--#

+e al

' 7

v ;

“ay

a 9

tiffs have renewed their motion before the

District Court for a preliminary injunction

of aaditional provisions of the Pennsylvania

Act. A full evidentiary hearing has been

held and a final hearing on the merits should

pe scheduied Shortly. The District Court

decision on these and other matters undoubt-

edly will be appealed to the Circuit Court of

Appeals and, probably, to this Court, as

well.

The complicated and fragmented proced-

ural posture of the case, argues in persua-

Sive decibels, that the interlocutory order

of the Circuit Court of Appeals clearly lacks

the degree or finality required for the

exercise by this Court of mandatory appellate

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1254(2) (here-

atter §1254(2)).

This Court consistently has required

that appeals can be taxen only from final

judgments of the Circuit Court of Appeals to

the United States Supreme Court.

+— oe

“ 7 ©

4 -_

‘

] . i

- - ;

; >

, .

‘

’

De eat : i as = a

ee ee o= 8

Under the Act of February 13,

1925 [the Amended Judicial Code of

1925], $240(b) [the predecessor to

§1254(2)] appeals to this Court

from Circuit Court of Appeals lie

only from final judgments or

decrees in cases where the validity

ot a state statute is drawn in

question on the ground of repug-

mance to the Constitution, trea-

ties, or laws of the United States,

and the decision is against its

validity. (citations omitted)

Slaker v. O'Conner, 278 U.S. 188, 189-190

(1929). This finality requirement was read

directly into §1254(2) in South Carolina

Electric and Gas Co. v. Flemming, 351 U.S.

901 (1956) (per curiam). Neither case has

been overruled and clearly are controlling

precedent here.?

3/Neither New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S.

297 (1976), Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422

U.S. 922 (1975), El Paso v. Simmons, 379 U.S.

497 (1964) (per curiam) nor Chicago v.

Acchison, T. & S.F.R. Co., 357 U.S. 77

(1958), reached the merits of the issue pres-

ently before the ccurt. In any event, all

four cases are factually distinguishable.

It is neither surprising nor confusing

that §240(b) of the amended Judicial Code of

1925 and 28 U.S.C. §1254(2) contain no

explicit rinality language. The final judge-

ment requirement within the federal court

system finds its historical roots in the

practice of the common law in the courts of

England‘ and in the first Judiciary Act of

1789, 1 Stat. 73, c. 20 §22. Finality has

been deemed a longstanding rule of procedural

practice implicit in all prior acts of

Congress, equally silent in their terms on

this matter, related to United States Supreme

Court appellate jurisdiction. See generally,

Crick, The Final Judgement as a Basis for

Appeal, 41 Yale L.J. 539 (1932). When the

4/E 1g. Metcalfe's Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 1193

(K.B. 1615); U.S. v. Girault, 52 U.S. 22

(1850); Holcombe v. McKusick, 61 U.S. 552

(1857).

» £8 «

: = - ya :

ry, a _ ee al ta ence avo Sa Samet

~ -

Diy cae

beh, es

- —_-

Circuit Courts of Appeal were created by the

Evarts Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 826,

this Court reaffirmed in clear and unmistak-

able terms the applicability of the final

judgement requirement for access to the

United States Supreme Court by appeal.

From the very toundation ot ovr

judicial system the object and

policy of the acts of Congress in

relation to appeals and writs of

error,... have been to save the

expense and dclays of repeated

appeals in the same suit, and to

have the whole case and every

matter in controversy in it decided

in a single appeal. Forgay v.

Conrad, 6 How. 201, 204. The

Construction [of non-finality]

contended for would render the act

under consideration inconsistent

with this long established object

and policy. More than this, it

would defeat the very object for

which that act was passed. ...

. - -(T)he distribution of the

entire appellate jurisdiction of

our national judi ial system,

between the Supreme Court of the

United States and the Circuit Court

of Appeals, .. . by designating

the classes of cases in respect of

which each of those two courts

shall respectively have final

jurisdiction. . .. [T])here is, we

think, no provision in the act

which can be construed into so

radical a change in all the exist-

ing statutes and settled rules of

practice and procedure ot Federal

courts as to extena the jurisdic-

tion of the Supreme Court to the

review of jurisdictional cases in

advance of the final judgments upon

them.

But there is a. additional reason

why the omissio” of the word final

- « « Should not be held to imply

that the purpose of the act is to

extend the right of appeal to any

question of jurisdiction, in

aavance of the final judgment, at

any time it may arise in the

progress of the cause in the court

below. Such implication, if

tenable, cannot be restricted to

questions of jurisdiction alone.

It applies equally to cases that

involve the construction or appli-

cation or the Constitution of the

United States; and to cases in

which the constitutionality of any

law of the United States, or the

validity or construction of any

treaty made under its authority, is

drawn in question; and to those in

which the constitution or law of a

State is claimed to be in contra-

vention of the Constitution of the

United States. Under such a con-

struction all these most important

classes of cases could be directly

taken py writ of error or appeal,

--.- to this court, independently of

any final judgment upon them. The

« 1? «

efrect of such a construction,

ir sanctioned, woulda subject this

court to the needless delays and

labor of several successive appeals

in the same case, which, ... by

awaiting the final judgment, could

be promptly decided in one appeal.

McLish v. Rotf, 141 U.S.661,665-667 (1891).

$1254(2), as originally enacted as

$240(b), was an amendment to the Judge's Bill

ot 1925 drafted by Justices deeply concerned

abouc the U.S. Supreme Court's caseload.

John Simpson, Turning Over the Reins: The

Abolition of the Mandatory Appellate Juris-

jiction of the Supreme Court, 6 Hastings

ronst. L.Q. 297, 299 n.7 (Fall, 1978), James

*. Blumstein, The Supreme Court's Jurisdic-

-ion - Reform Proposals, Discretionary

eview, and Writ Dismissals, 26 Vand. L.

ev. 895, 898-899 (1973); F. Frankfurter

nad J. Landis, The Business of the Supreme

ourt, 273-278 (Johnson Reprint Corp., N.Y.

972). $240(b) was a Senate compromise

easure designed to place circuit courts of

+ 89

appeal and state courts, pursuant to §237(a),

43 Stat. 937 (mow 28 U.S.C. §1257(a)), in

"“perrect parity, allowing a writ error from

the circuit court of appeals under conditions

exactly the same, except reversed, and allow-

ing a writ of certiorari in the one case as

in the other case, so that the two would be

entirely harmonious." Frankfurter and

Landis, supra. at 278 (citing Sen. Walsh,

66 Cong. Rec. 2923); see also Simpson,

supra. at 313. While §237(a), directed to

state courts. with varying appellate

practices, explicitly required finality,

§240(b) merely reflected codification of

historical federal court practice. >

/ this comparison is not intended to imply

any other similarity of requirements under

these statutes.

The finality requirement, for some time,

has served as one of a number of measures

aimed at relieving the burden of the Supreme

Court caseload by reducing the number of

cases requiring mandatory appellate review.

Congressional policy has been to restrict the

mandatory appellate jurisdiction of the U.S.

Supreme Court. Tnis*.Court has recognized

6/phe Evarts Act, Act of March 3, 1891, 26

Stat. 826, established the federal Circuit

Courts or Appeal and U.S. Supreme Court

certiorari authority over certain cases. The

Act or September 6, 1916 Ch. 448, 39 Stat.

726, provided a right of appeal to the U.S.

Supreme Court from state dourt only where a

rederal statute, treaty, authority or right

was struck down or a state\statute upheld

against federal challenge. \The Act of

Feoruary 13, 1925, Ch. 229, ‘43 Stat. 936,

the Judge's Bill of 1925, widaly substituted

certiorari review for a significant part of

U.S. Supreme Court mandatory appellate

jurisdiction. The Act of August 22, 1976, 90

Stat. 1120, by repealing 28 U.S.C. §§ 2281,

2282 and 2403, abolished direct appeals to

the United States Supreme Court from most

three-judge district courts.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.