# Amicus Curiae Brief — Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0329%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1986 - **Citation:** 476 U.S. 747 ## 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 — ce — 2 — — § —_ — - Cc benedhened co 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 ia — 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 1 a 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: 1. 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 n 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 ii 7 * ‘ aa : aa ad . ; ) ? i 7 i ; > 7 _ 2 : — —— : ‘ y - * 7 Aa a - > y ' * 1 : 7 Lh y * » 2 sg er en - « f AAA es - - 4 + —- ’ ©, é -s ‘ ’ ed 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 ae 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 iv os * 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 Vv a - iva a © * e f up ) ; 4 . @ q » a ; Ps “ a : ee - be | Sood + 4 ; -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 == } n : 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 ) a . : ae A424 * & 453i ie | ‘ 7 | 4 we a 7 ia 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 as . 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 é 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 vi 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 ~ . , A As oa — a L x ® : Pass ’ ’ a ¥ 7. “— ry, ie + é 1 = > ia 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. i 7 5 eee ee ae om, . 7 ‘ - 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 é 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 : ag 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 gs = | . 7 fe , bay 5 ae 7 ' : a , ’ : 7 . a “ sd ~ im ¢ ad \@ a4 ‘ mh eo ie be - . ~ y - ID me uF * 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 - a 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¢% ! « . we oe i] 4 é : | »* ; 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- a > ithe cial. Sip 4. ae 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 , | a - = ‘ 4 - : --# : a = a i} j i 7 +e al ' 7 v ; in , “ay 7 a 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 -_ \ . ' ‘ ee ] . i . . - - ; , ee + ; > , . , . - 4 * ‘ ’ . De eat : i as = a ee ee o= 8 s 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 - 7 t q - —_- in 1 : : i _ 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 aT *. 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. 6 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. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0329%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.