Lambert v. Wicklund, 520 U.S. 292 (1997) (per curiam)

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

520us1$41Z 05-14-98 09:56:54 PAGES OPINPGT

292

OCTOBER TERM, 1996

Syllabus

LAMBERT, GALLATIN COUNTY ATTORNEY v. WICKLUND et al.

on petition for writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit

No. 96-858. Decided March 31, 1997

Montana's Parental Notice of Abortion Act permits a court to waive the requirement that one parent be notified before a minor has an abortion if, inter alia, notification is not in the minor's best interests. The Federal District Court declared the Act unconstitutional because the judicial bypass mechanism does not authorize waiver of the notice requirement whenever the abortion itself is in the minor's best interest. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, basing its conclusion entirely on its earlier decision that Nevada's identical bypass requirement was inconsistent with Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U. S. 622, and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U. S. 502.

Held: The Act's judicial bypass provision sufficiently protects a minor's right to an abortion. The Ninth Circuit's holding to the contrary is in direct conflict with this Court's precedents. The principal opinion in Bellotti explained the four criteria that a parental consent statute bypass provision must meet to be constitutional, and this Court explicitly held that the Ohio statute at issue in Akron met the second Bellotti requirement: that the minor be allowed to show that the desired abortion would be in her best interests. The Ohio statute was indistinguishable in any relevant way from the statute at issue here, and, thus, the Montana law also meets the second Bellotti requirement. Akron's context, the Ohio statute's language, and Akron's concurring opinion all make clear that requiring a minor to show that parental notification is not in her best interests is equivalent to requiring her to show that abortion without notification is in her best interests. Contrary to respondents' argument, the Montana statute does not draw a distinction between requiring a minor to show that parental notification is not in her best interests and requiring her to show that an abortion (without notification) is in her best interests, and respondents cite no Montana state-court decision suggesting that the statute permits a court to separate these questions.

Certiorari granted; 93 F. 3d 567, reversed.

Page:   Index   1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007