Case ID: us_505/html/1240-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Justice Stevens,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

September 2, 1992
    No. 90-985.
    Bray et al. v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic et al.
   C. A. 4th Cir. [Certiorari granted, 498 U. S. 1119.] Motion of respondents for leave to file a brief on reargument granted with respect to arguments addressing the potential significance of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, ante, p. 833, and the availability of injunctive relief for violations of 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3), but denied with respect to arguments addressing the hindrance clause of 42 U. S. C. § 1985(3). Petitioners may file a supplemental brief on reargument on or before September 17, 1992, responding to respondents’ arguments regarding Planned Parenthood and the availability of injunctive relief.

Justice O’Connor would grant the motion in its entirety.

Justice Stevens,

with whom Justice Blackmun joins,

dissenting.

In a statutory construction case that is important enough to merit reargument, the Court should err on the side of allowing full discussion of the entire statute at issue. Without having examined the supplemental brief attached to respondents’ motion, and noting the absence of any objection from petitioners, I would therefore allow it to be filed as a matter of course. Because I intend to read the entire supplemental brief in preparation for the reargument — despite the Court’s peculiar order — I would welcome comment by petitioners on all issues discussed therein.