Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

Supreme Court of the United States · 1986 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawAbortionSubstantive Due ProcessPrivacyRoe v. WadeAkroninformed consentstate-compelled speech

Facts

Pennsylvania enacted an Abortion Control Act requiring detailed physician-delivered and state-printed information before an abortion, detailed reporting and public availability of abortion reports, a post-first-trimester viability reporting requirement, and special rules for postviability abortions including a fetal-protective method requirement and a second-physician requirement when viability was possible. Before the Act became effective, physicians, counselors, providers, clergy, and others sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The record on the preliminary injunction motion included extensive affidavits and a stipulation of uncontested facts for that motion. The Court of Appeals invalidated several provisions as unconstitutional under this Court's recent abortion precedents.

Issue

Whether the Court of Appeals properly invalidated, on review of a preliminary injunction ruling, Pennsylvania statutory provisions governing informed consent, printed materials, abortion reporting, viability determination, the standard of care in postviability abortions, and the second-physician requirement. Also, whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction over the nonfinal court-of-appeals judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2).

Rule

A nonfinal court-of-appeals judgment remanding for further factual development is not appealable to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2). On the merits, a State may require truly voluntary and informed consent to an abortion, but may not compel the delivery of information designed to influence the woman's choice between abortion and childbirth, impose rigid disclosures irrelevant to the patient's circumstances, or intrude into physician judgment in a way that advances no legitimate state interest. Recordkeeping and reporting provisions are permissible only when reasonably directed to maternal health and when they properly respect patient confidentiality and privacy. After viability, the woman's health may not be subordinated through a tradeoff requiring her to bear increased medical risk to enhance fetal survival, and a second-physician requirement is invalid absent a medical-emergency exception protecting the woman.

🔒

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.

A federal court of appeals in Chicago holds three sections of an Illinois reproductive-health statute unconstitutional, but sends two other sections back to the district court in Springfield for additional factfinding about how they operate in practice. State officials file a direct appeal to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(2), arguing the constitutional rulings are immediately reviewable.

How should the Supreme Court treat the State's attempted appeal?

Explanation. The majority held that when a court of appeals issues a nonfinal judgment and remands for further factual development, the Supreme Court lacks appellate jurisdiction under § 1254(2). But it may treat the jurisdictional statement as a petition for certiorari and grant review that way.