Court refuses to reopen 1973 abortion ruling
on Oct 10, 2006 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court, as expected, refused on Tuesday to allow an Atlanta woman to reopen the 1973 ruling that was a companion case to Roe v. Wade (complete orders list here). The case of Doe v. Bolton, also decided Jan. 22, 1973, added to Roe by restricting the medical requirements imposed on the abortion option. Sandra Cano of Atlanta, who was the “Mary Doe” of that case, asked the Court to reopen her case under federal court Rule 60 (b), which allows reconsideration of a prior judgment if its continued enforcement has become unjust.
Cano’s appeal was denied without comment, and with no indication of any dissent. Georgia officials had declined even to respond to the petition, and the Court did not seek one from them. (Doe v. Baker, docket 06-162). The Court had similarly denied the same effort by Norma McCorvey, the “Jane Roe” of the lead 1973 case establishing a right to seek an abortion. (McCorvey v. Hll was denied on Feb. 22 of last year). The addition of two new Justices to the Court since then made no difference in the Court’s response to the argument that medical science and the law had changed since 1973, so the issue should be reconsidered.
The Court granted review of no new cases on Tuesday..
Among other cases denied review was a test by 30 states’ attorneys general of the power of a federal court in New York to rule on passage and enforcement of state laws dealing with tobacco marketing in their states. Their appeal was King, et al., v. Grand River Enterprises (05-1343). The case grows out of the $206 billion settlement of states’ lawsuits against the tobacco industry. It involves three smaller tobacco companies that did not join in the settlement, but are required under laws in the 30 states to put money into an escrow fund in each state to cover potential future damage awards resulting from cigarette-related claims in those states’ courts. The three companies have sued the attorneys general in federal court in New York. The only parts of their case that survived review by the Second Circuit Court are a Sherman Act trade restraint claim and a Commerce Clause claim of an invalid nationwide regulation resulting in higher prices for cigarettes. Those claims can now proceed to trial. The states could still pursue their constitutional challenges if they should ultimately lose at the trial.
The Court also turned down a significant new case seeking clarification of the government’s power to order private entities to pay the costs of cleanup of toxic waste dumps under the Superfund law (W.R. Grace & Co. v. U.S., 05-1363), and an attempt to raise anew the question of how makers of generic drugs can obtain a court ruling on a patent’s validity that may affect their ability to go to market with a substitute drug (Apotex v. Pfizer Inc., 05-1006). The Court denied review of the Apotex appeal without ruling on Pfizer’s suggestion that the case had become moot. The case involved Pfizer’s anti-depression drug, Zoloft. Pfizer contended that the case is moot partly because one of its patents on Zoloft has now expired and a generic substitute is on the market. (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., did not take part in the Apotex order.)
In W.R. Grace’s Superfund appeal, the question was the validity of a $54.5 million tab that a lower court has ruled that the company must pay to the government for the costs of the immediate cleanup of a waste dump in a small mining town in northwestern Montana. Grace took the case to the Supreme Court to sort out the difference between a “removal” action involving a pollutant, and a “remedial,” longer-term action. The Justice Department had urged the Court not to hear the appeal, saying it only involved a unique, fact-bound situation.
Also denied was an appeal by a Virginia telemarketing firm seeking to challenge the constitutionality of state laws against pre-recorded, non-commercial telephone calls from out of state (FreeEats.com, Inc., v. North Dakota 06-127, and an appeal by New York City in a case seeking to bar a downtown church from allowing homeless people to sleep outdoors on its steps, without shelter or toilet facilities (New York City v. Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, 06-163).
In another order, the Court agreed to allow the U.S. solicitor general to take part in the oral argument on Nov. 6 in a bankruptcy case, testing the right to switch from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11. The case is Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts, 05-996; the question presented is here.
