Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Hodgson v. Minnesota

Supreme Court of the United States · 1990 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAbortionMinorsParental NotificationDue Processdue processabortionminor's right to choose

Facts

Minnesota required that no abortion be performed on a woman under 18 until at least 48 hours after both of her parents had been notified, unless there was a medical emergency, both parents had consented in writing, or the minor declared parental abuse or neglect. The statute defined "parent" to mean both parents if both were living, with no exception for divorced, noncustodial, or never-married biological parents, though notice to one parent sufficed if the second could not be located through reasonably diligent effort. If subdivision 2 was enjoined, subdivision 6 required the same notice unless the minor obtained a confidential, expedited judicial order authorizing the abortion based on maturity or best interests. The District Court found that the two-parent requirement often harmed minors and custodial parents in divorced, separated, abusive, or dysfunctional families, sometimes reduced parent-child communication, and forced many minors and supportive parents into burdensome bypass proceedings.

Issue

Whether Minnesota may require 48 hours' notice to both parents before an unemancipated minor obtains an abortion, and whether that requirement is constitutional when paired with a judicial bypass procedure. More specifically, the case asked whether the two-parent notice requirement was reasonably related to legitimate state interests.

Rule

Because a state abortion statute places obstacles in a pregnant minor's path to an abortion, the State bears the burden of establishing its constitutionality. Under any analysis, such a statute cannot be sustained if the obstacles it imposes are not reasonably related to legitimate state interests. A general rule requiring involvement of one parent may reasonably further the State's interest in providing parental advice, but a rule requiring notice to or consent of both parents is not reasonably related to that interest.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute requiring an unemancipated minor to wait 72 hours after notice has been delivered to both living biological parents before an abortion may be performed. The law applies even if one parent has had no contact with the minor for years, so long as that parent can be found.

If Oregon defends the law solely on the ground that it promotes parental advice and family consultation, which argument best supports the minor's constitutional challenge under the lead opinion?

Explanation. The lead opinion states that when a statute places obstacles in a pregnant minor's path to an abortion, the State bears the burden of showing constitutionality, and the law cannot stand if those obstacles are not reasonably related to legitimate state interests. A general rule involving one parent may reasonably further the interest in parental advice, but requiring notice to both parents does not. That is especially so where the law reaches absent or noncustodial parents.