What to do with the abortion case on the Supreme Court list? - SCOTUS Blog (2023)

WATCH RECOVERY

The Relist Watch column examines certified petitions that the Supreme Court has relisted for its next conference. A brief explanation of relists is availableHere.

The Supreme Court will observeSaint Patrick's daywill meet at a conference this year to discuss which of that day's 184 petitions and motions for resolution should receive favorable consideration. Only one of these cases is relisted:Chapman vs. Doe. Jane Doe, then a 17-year-old unemancipated girl, went to Missouri state court to obtain a waiver under state law that would allow her to have an abortion without notifying her parents. Court clerk Michelle Chapman told Doe that her parents would be notified anyway; Chapman later argued that the presiding judge told her to give that answer, even though the judge could not remember it. Doe (who ended up traveling to Illinois and getting an evasion of court and an abortion) then sued, claiming that her constitutional rights had been violated. The district court denied Chapman quasi-judicial immunity because there was a matter of relevant fact, and it denied qualified immunity because there was case law on the books that made it illegal to impose an extra-statutory reporting requirement. The United States Court of Appeals for8th circle confirmed.

And then the Supreme Court ruledDobbs Gegen Jackson Women's Health Organization, cancelRoe x WadeEPlanned Parenthood in Southeast Pennsylvania vs. caseyand the finding that there is no constitutional right to abortion. The state of Missouri filed a Certiori petition, arguing that Chapman was wrongfully denied immunity from prosecution; that it was not clearly established that an evasion provision was also constitutionally requiredRogen; and that the case should be referred for reconsiderationDobbs. So Chapman and Doe (now adults) went back to district court and both parties filed a "release agreement" under the Federal Code of Civil Procedure (a)(1)(A)(ii).

Both parties have submitted materiality suggestions to the Supreme Court, but disagree on why the rejection makes the case relevant. The state argues that the dispute arose from "circumstances not attributable to either party" and the court must therefore give upUnited States x Munsingwearso that the State would not be bound by a sentence which it could not appeal to the court because it was irrelevant in the interim. The state maintains that position despite agreeing to the dismissal because, according to Missouri, "Dobbs, not the petitioner, caused the dispute." It is also said on several occasions that the case is moot because of "unilateral rejection of your case' (although termination was mandatory) and argues that '[n] No exception to Mootness applies, in part because [Doe] is no longer a minor.“

Doe, on the other hand, says that the case is only moot because the parties agreed to file it, and she notes that, at this late stage of the litigation, she was only able to file the case because both parties agreed to it. Doe also argues that the fact that she is an adult is irrelevant because she was seeking damages for her previous injury which prevented the case from becoming moot. And she argues thatDobbshas nothing to do with litigation because she argued that her due process rights were violated by Chapman's"Graft a new notification requirement onto a law that does not require notification' and not just because of her abortion rights. But Doe still claims he doesn't reject Vacatur.

In short, it seems quite unlikely that the court will allow a reviewChapman vs. Doe. But it looks like the court will need more time to determine whetherMunsingwearHolidays are announced. We'll have a better idea on Monday.

new lists

Chapman vs. Doe,22-312
matters: (1) Whether Clerk Chapman was properly denied quasi-judicial immunity because the judge could not remember anything about the case, including whether the judge instructed her to notify her parents as an unemancipated minor with a claim for evasion of justice to make a abortion; (2) whether it was clearly established in 2018 that providing a pre-hearing notice to the parent of an unemancipated minor through a judicial evasion procedure violates the minor's clearly established rights; and (3) if, in light of that court's interim decision onDobbs gegen Jackson Women's Health Org., the court must be remanded to see if Doe can show that she is entitled to a circumvention trial without notifying her parents.

the return depends

McClinton against the United States,21-1557
exit: Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a conviction of a criminal defendant on conduct for which a jury acquitted the defendant.
(resumed after January 13 conference; apparently held after January 20 conference)

Luczak against the United States,21-8190
exit: Whether this court should reverse its decisionUnited States x Watts, which establishes that sentencing judges may consider acquitted conduct when imposing a sentence among the factors provided for in item18 USC § 3553(a).
(resumed after January 13 conference; apparently held after January 20 conference)

Shaw vs United States,22-118
matters: (1) Whether the jury clauses of Article III and the Sixth Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment preclude a court from imposing a more severe sentence on the basis of conduct that a juror was compelled to reject on the basis of its verdicts acquittal on other charges in the same trial; (2) if the decision of the Supreme Court inUnited States x Wattsmust be replaced; and (3) whether, circumventing the constitutional issue, the estoppel rules employed in federal criminal cases prohibit the imposition of an aggravated sentence on a factual predicate that is necessarily rejected by a jury court in the same case.
(resumed after January 13 conference; apparently held after January 20 conference)

Karr x United States,22-5345
Matters:(1) Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant's conviction on conduct underlying a charge for which the defendant was acquitted by a jury; (2) Whether it violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment when the district court convicted Karr based on 20-year-old extrajudicial testimony that was never cross-examined by the most guilty, but now deceased, co-conspirator who was trying to get a plea bargain cheaper for the same criminal charges Karr was facing.
(resumed after January 13 conference; apparently held after January 20 conference)

Bullock against the United States,22-5828
Matters:(1) Whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing the judgment of a criminal defendant on conduct for which a jury acquitted the defendant; (2) whether the Fifth and Sixth Amendments prohibit a federal court from basing a criminal defendant's conviction on conduct that was charged in another jurisdiction, tried in another court, supervised by another judge, and from which the defendant was previously acquitted.
(resumed after January 13 conference; apparently held after January 20 conference)

Donziger vs. United States,22-274
matters: (1) Whether Criminal Procedure Code 42(a)(2) permits the judicial appointment of junior law enforcement officers; and (2) if so, whether such appointments violate the appointment clause in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
(postponed prior to January 13 conference; relisted after January 20, February 17, February 24, and March 3 conferences)

Brown vs Luisiana,22-77
exit: If, when a defendant denies participation in a particular crime, a confession by another person that he and another person committed the crime - without naming the suspect - is favorable and material evidenceBrady contra Maryland.
(Recording requested October 18; listed again after the February 17, February 24, and March 3 conferences)