Document: 448 U.S. 358 100 S.Ct. 2694 65 L.Ed.2d 831 Jasper F. WILLIAMS and Eugene Diamond, Appellants,v.David ZBARAZ et al. Jeffrey C. MILLER, Acting Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, al., Appellants, v. David UNITED STATES, Appellant, Nos. 79-4, 79-5 79-491. Argued April 21, 1980. Decided June 30, Rehearing Denied Sept. 17, See 917, 101 38, 39. Syllabus Appellees brought a class action in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enjoin, on both federal statutory constitutional grounds, enforcement an statute prohibiting state medical assistance payments for all abortions except those necessary save the life woman seeking abortion. The Court, granting injunctive relief, held that Title XIX Social Security Act, which established Medicaid program, regulations promulgated thereunder require participating State such program provide funding medically abortions, so-called Hyde Amendment use funds reimburse costs certain does not relieve its independent obligation abortions. Appeals reversed, holding altered way as allow States limit categories specified Amendment, but may not, consistent with XIX, withhold reimbursement is available case was remanded modification injunction directions consider constitutionality Amendment. then violate equal protection guarantee Constitution insofar they deny "medically prior point fetal viability." Held: 1. lacked jurisdiction court acted absence or controversy sufficient permit exercise judicial power Art. III Constitution. None parties ever challenged validity appellees could have been awarded relief sought entirely basis Court's ruling statute. interjected issue only by Appeals' erroneous mandate, create where none otherwise existed. P. 367. 2. Notwithstanding had no declare unconstitutional, this has 28 1252 over "whole case," thus review other issues preserved these appeals. McLucas DeChamplain, 421 95 1365, 43 699. 367-368. 3. A obligated pay unavailable Harris McRae, 297, 306-311, 2671, 2682-2685, 784. 369. 4. restrictions statute, comparable do Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth at 324-326, S.Ct., 2691-2693. 469 F.Supp. 1212, vacated remanded. 1 William A. Wenzel, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Chicago, Ill., appellants No. 79-5. 2 Victor G. Rosenblum, 79-4. 3 Sol. Gen. Wade H. McCree, Jr., Washington, D. C., appellant 4 Robert W. Bennett, each case. 5 Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 6 This suit Northern enjoin prohibits "necessary preservation treatment."1 plaintiffs were two physicians who perform indigent women, welfare rights organization, Jane Doe, pregnant alleged she desired abortion necessary, her life. defendant Director agency charged administering State's programs.2 Two intervened defendants. 7 grounds. They asserted, first, commonly known "Medicaid" 1396 seq. (1976 ed. Supp. II), requires coverage plan whether endangered. Second, argued public services generally, violates 8 initially it would abstain from considering complaint until courts construed statute.3 appealed, Seventh Circuit reversed. Zbaraz Quern, 572 F.2d 582. appellate abstention inappropriate circumstances, further proceedings, including consideration plaintiffs' motion preliminary injunction. On remand, certified plaintiff classes: (1) women eligible programs desire life-preserving, (2) are obtain programs. 9 Addressing merits complaint, concluded According "Hyde Amendment" Congress prohibited abortions4 Thus, permanently enjoined denied indicated according professional judgment licensed physician Illinois, exercised light factors affecting woman's health." 10 again Cir., 596 196. Reaching same conclusion First Preterm, Inc. Dukakis, 591 121, "alters states amendment." F.2d, 199. It held, however, Amendment.5 Accordingly, instructions permanent be modified so continued "for fundable Amendment."6 Id., 202. also directed proceed expeditiously resolve questions reached. specifically "whether limiting circumstances even if Fifth Amendment." Ibid. (footnote omitted). 11 second notified Attorney General United Act drawn into question, intervened, pursuant 2403(a), defend Amendment.7 iZbaraz 1215, n. In view fact rather expressed misgivings about propriety passing law. But noting reasoning apply determining observed: "Although we persuaded enactments inseparable hesitate inject proceeding law directly attack plaintiffs, obviously constrained obey Circuit's mandate. Therefore, while our discussion will address analysis applies granted encompass laws." 12 unconstitutional 1221. If restricted covered thought effect "be increase substantially maternal morbidity mortality among women." 1220. standard because 13 "a interest health outweighs any possible non-viable fetus that, need abortion, state's legitimate. At viability, 'the relative weights respective interests involved' shift, thereby legitimizing interests. After point, therefore, . though operations." 14 Aid enforcing payment viability.8 did States. 15 intervening-defendant physicians, appealed averring 1252. consolidated appeals postponed question hearing merits. 444 962, 447, 62 374. 16 * asserted 1252, provides relevant part: 17 "Any party appeal Supreme interlocutory final judgment, decree order civil action, suit, agencies, officer employee thereof, employee, party." 18 quite obvious literal requirements satisfied present cases, taken declaring Congress—the Amendment—in reason intervention 2403(a). 19 equally clear, correct asserting cases regard statute.9 mandate Appeals. But, simply following directive exceeded unconstitutional. 20 arises lack divests We think not. As 31-32, 1372, 699, 21 "Our previous recognized depends district jurisdiction. contrary, brings before us, whole case, threshsold subject-matter jurisdiction, three-judge required." (Citations omitted.) 22 involved single-judge pretermitted enter injunction, instead resolved follows notwithstanding without case."10 II 23 Disposition extended discussion. Insofar already portion must vacated. See, e. g., Johnson, 319 302, 63 1075, 87 L.Ed. 1413; Muskrat States, 219 346, 31 250, 55 246. remaining concern argue endangered, Amendment.11 Both arguments foreclosed decision today appellees' argument, McRae their component withholding providing services. follows, reasons, 24 vacated, proceedings opinion. 25 ordered. codified Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. (1979). "§ 5-5. [Medical services.] Department, rule, shall determine quantity quality authorized, provided, include part following: [listing services], induced miscarriages premature births, unless, physician, procedures treatment ." 6-1. Eligibility requirements. Nothing Article financial aid purpose miscarriage birth treatment. 7-1. meeting medical, dental, hospital, boarding nursing care, burial given [to persons], obtaining here plan, jointly funded Government fully state-funded programs, Assistance Local Medically Indigent Programs. All opinions than now unreported. Since September 1976, prohibited—by means annual appropriations Health, Education, Welfare (now divided Health Human Services Education)—the cost circumstances. current version applicable fiscal year 1980 provides: "[N]one provided joint resolution used mother endangered carried term; victims rape incest when reported promptly service." Pub.L. 96-123, 109, 93 Stat. 926. 96-86, 118, 662. broader 1977, "rape incest" exception, 94-439, 209, 90 1434, narrower most 1978 1979, additional exception "instances severe long-lasting physical damage result pregnancy term determined physicians," 95-205, 101, 91 1460; 95-480, 210, 92 1586. opinion, generically refer three versions, otherwise. Neither nor intervening-physicians proceeded premise obligates fund reimbursable That issue, us Although exclusively governed either requiring should see 2, supra. 202-203. Relying statement brief, intended represent understanding congressional reflected original 203. declined sever various Section 2403(a) "In agency, thereof party, wherein certify General, intervene presentation evidence, evidence admissible argument constitutionality. shall, subject provisions law, liabilities extent proper facts relating constitutionality." refused stay order, moved pending appeal. denied. 442 1309, 99 2095, 60 1033. (STEVENS, J., chambers). reapplication 915, 2833, 61 282. prohibit "[a] [from] includ[ing] [under Amendment]." U.S., 311, 16, 2685, 16. pass remainder FHA Darlington, Inc., 352 977, 77 381, 363, empowered "an case." 31, 1372. Here, there case" properly clearly involves justiciable controversy, includes challenges decided during since narrowed ambit 1980, 4, recent revision affect outcome affected, conclude 2683-2685, because, regardless restrictive Amendment—which similar here—does affected changes defer opportunity evaluate effects

Category: 4