Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00328-23/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00328 JSW

NOTICE OF QUESTIONS FOR

THE HEARING

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, PLEASE TAKE

NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS FOR THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON

JANUARY 12, 2007: 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ memoranda of points and authorities and, thus, does

not wish to hear the parties reargue matters addressed in those pleadings. If the parties intend to

rely on authorities not cited in their briefs, they are ORDERED to notify the Court and opposing

counsel of these authorities reasonably in advance of the hearing and to make copies available at

the hearing. If the parties submit such additional authorities, they are ORDERED to submit the

citations to the authorities only, without argument or additional briefing. Cf. N.D. Civil Local

Rule 7-3(d). The parties will be given the opportunity at oral argument to explain their reliance

on such authority.

The parties shall have fifteen minutes to address the following questions: 

(1) The Ninth Circuit has made clear that “to the extent that statutes can be harmonized,

they should be” and that “Congress must be presumed to have known of its former

legislation and to have passed new laws in view of the provisions of the legislation

already enacted.” United States v. Trident Seafoods Corp., 92 F.3d 855, 862 (9th Cir.

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 118 Filed 01/11/07 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

1996). In light of this standard, what is the United States’ position with respect to the

interplay between the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

(“EMTALA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd and the Weldon Amendment? Should the Weldon

Amendment be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the EMTALA?

(2) If the Weldon Amendment does contain an exception for emergencies pursuant to the

EMTALA, does the State still contend that the Weldon Amendment is unconstitutional?

(3) The State argues that the standard for facial challenges is the standard set forth in United

States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987), which

provides that a plaintiff must “establish that no set of circumstances exists under which

the [statute] would be valid.” However, a different standard applies to facial challenges

to abortion statutes. See S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d

461, 467 (9th Cir. 2001). A facial challenge to abortion statutes only requires a showing

that the statute “operate as a substantial obstacle to an otherwise lawful course in a large

fraction of relevant cases.” Id. Which standard do the parties contend applies here?

(4) In South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 208 (1987), the Supreme Court notes that “other

constitutional provisions may provide a bar to the conditional grant of federal funds.” 

The State does not appear to argue that the Weldon Amendment violates this limitation

on the Spending Clause, but rather asserts a separate claim on behalf of women that the

Weldon Amendment imposes an undue burden on abortion. 

(a) Has the Court correctly construed the State’s claims and arguments? 

(b) Even if the Court finds that California has standing to assert a claim under the

Spending Clause due to the present injury to the State’s inability to enforce its

own laws, the State bears the burden to demonstrate standing to assert a claim for

infringement of a women’s right to obtain an abortion. On what basis does the

State contend that there an injury in fact with respect to a woman’s

constitutionally protected right to obtain an abortion unless and until an

emergency arises in which a woman needs but is refused medical services. 

(5) “Any abortion regulation must contain adequate provision for a woman to terminate her

pregnancy if it imposes a threat to her life or health. ... An adequate health exception,

that is, is a per se constitutional requirement.” Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v.

Wasden, 376 F.3d 908, 922 (9th Cir. 2004) If, in order to comply with the conditions set

forth in the Weldon Amendment, the State were required to amend California Health and

Safety Code § 123420 to apply to medical emergency situations, would this statute

become unconstitutional?

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 118 Filed 01/11/07 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

(6) In its reply brief, the United States explained that although the 2006 fiscal year has

expired, the Weldon Amendment remains in effect by virtue of continuing resolutions

enacted on September 29 and November 15, 2006. What is the status of appropriations

for the 2007 fiscal year and when, if ever, do the continuing resolutions expire?

Dated: January 11, 2007 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00328-JSW Document 118 Filed 01/11/07 Page 3 of 3