1980 United States Supreme Court case
Harris v. McRae |
---|
|
Argued April 21, 1980 Decided June 30, 1980 |
---|
Full case name | Harris, Secretary of Health and Human Services v. Cora McRae, et al. |
---|
Citations | 448 U.S. 297 (more) 100 S. Ct. 2671; 65 L. Ed. 2d 784; 1980 U.S. LEXIS 145 |
---|
Case history |
---|
Prior | McRae v. Califano, 491 F. Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1980) |
---|
Subsequent | Petition for rehearing denied, 448 U.S. 917 (1980). |
---|
Holding |
---|
States that participated in Medicaid were not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment. The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate either the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. |
Court membership |
---|
- Chief Justice
- Warren E. Burger
- Associate Justices
- William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens |
Case opinions |
---|
Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, White, Powell, Rehnquist |
---|
Concurrence | White |
---|
Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun |
---|
Dissent | Marshall |
---|
Dissent | Blackmun |
---|
Dissent | Stevens |
---|
Laws applied |
---|
U.S. Const. amends. I, V; Hyde Amendment |
Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that states participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement was unavailable as a result of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted the use of federal funds for abortion.[1] The Court also held that the funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment did not violate the Fifth Amendment or the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Background
In 1965, the U.S. Congress amended Title XIX of the Social Security Act to create Medicaid, a voluntary program to provide federal funds to states that choose to provide reimbursement for certain medical expenses for the indigent.[2]
In September 1976, Congress began to ban the use of federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under Medicaid.[3] Initially, the only exception was if the life of the mother would be endangered by the fetus being carried to term. The restrictions became known as the Hyde Amendment, after the measure's original sponsor, Illinois Representative Henry Hyde. The language of the 1980 Hyde Amendment provided:
[None] of the funds provided by this joint resolution shall be used to perform abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term; or except for such medical procedures necessary for the victims of rape or incest when such rape or incest has been reported promptly to a law enforcement agency or public health service.[4]
In 1976, after the passage of the original Hyde Amendment, an action was brought in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York that sought to enjoin enforcement of its restrictions.[5] The plaintiffs were Cora McRae, a New York Medicaid recipient who was in the first trimester of a pregnancy that she wished to abort; the New York City Health and Hospitals Corp., which operated hospitals providing abortion services; officers of the Women's Division of the Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church; and the Women's Division itself.[6] McRae sought to bring the action as a class action on behalf of other similarly situated women.[6] The District Court granted the class certification motion and permitted US Senators James L. Buckley and Jesse Helms as well as Hyde to intervene as defendants.[6]
The district court granted the injunction on January 15, 1980, and found that the Hyde Amendment violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.[7]
Supreme Court decision
Justice Stewart delivered the opinion of the Court in which Chief Justice Burger, Justice White, Justice Powell, and Justice Rehnquist joined. Justice White wrote an opinion concurring the judgment. Justice Brennan wrote a dissent to which Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun joined. Justice Marshall and Justice Blackmun also wrote separate dissents, and Justice Stevens did so as well.
The Court held that states participating in the Medicaid program were not obligated to fund medically necessary abortions under Title XIX. The Court found that a woman's freedom of choice does not carry with it "a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices." The Court ruled that because the Equal Protection Clause is not a source of substantive rights and because poverty does not qualify as a "suspect classification," the Hyde Amendment does not violate the Fifth Amendment. Finally, the Court held that the coincidence of the funding restrictions of the statute with tenets of the Roman Catholic Church does not constitute an establishment of religion.
See also
References
- ^ Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980).
- ^ 448 U.S. at 301.
- ^ 448 U.S. at 302.
- ^ Pub. L. 96-123, § 109, 93 Stat. 926
- ^ McRae v. Mathews, 421 F. Supp. 533 (E.D.N.Y. 1976).
- ^ a b c 448 U.S. at 303.
- ^ McRae v. Califano, 491 F. Supp. 630 (E.D.N.Y. 1980).
External links
- Text of Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297 (1980) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress OpenJurist Oyez (oral argument audio)
|
---|
Public displays and ceremonies | |
---|
Statutory religious exemptions | |
---|
Public funding | |
---|
Religion in public schools | |
---|
Private religious speech | |
---|
Internal church affairs | |
---|
Taxpayer standing | |
---|
Blue laws | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
Unprotected speech | Incitement and sedition | |
---|
Libel and false speech | |
---|
Fighting words and the heckler's veto | |
---|
True threats | |
---|
Obscenity | - Rosen v. United States (1896)
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses (S.D.N.Y. 1933)
- Roth v. United States (1957)
- One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
- Smith v. California (1959)
- Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
- MANual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
- Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
- Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
- Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
- Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
- Redrup v. New York (1967)
- Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
- Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
- United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
- Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
- Miller v. California (1973)
- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
- United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
- Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
- Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad (1975)
- Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
- Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
- Vance v. Universal Amusement Co., Inc. (1980)
- American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut (7th Cir. 1985)
- People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
- United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
- Reno v. ACLU (1997)
- United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
- City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU I (2002)
- United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
- Ashcroft v. ACLU II (2004)
- Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
- United States v. Williams (2008)
- American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland (6th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Kilbride (9th Cir. 2009)
- United States v. Stevens (2010)
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
- FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
|
---|
Speech integral to criminal conduct | |
---|
|
---|
Strict scrutiny | |
---|
Vagueness | |
---|
Symbolic speech versus conduct | |
---|
Content-based restrictions | |
---|
Content-neutral restrictions | |
---|
Compelled speech | |
---|
Compelled subsidy of others' speech | |
---|
Government grants and subsidies | |
---|
Government as speaker | |
---|
Loyalty oaths | |
---|
School speech | |
---|
Public employees | |
---|
Hatch Act and similar laws | |
---|
Licensing and restriction of speech | |
---|
Commercial speech | - Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
- Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
- Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
- Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
- Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
- Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
- Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
- Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
- Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
- In re Primus (1978)
- Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association (1978)
- Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
- Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
- Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
- In re R.M.J. (1982)
- Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
- Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
- Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
- San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
- Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Association (1988)
- Riley v. Nat'l Fed'n of the Blind (1988)
- State University of New York v. Fox (1989)
- Peel v. Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois (1990)
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (1993)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1993)
- United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co. (1993)
- Ibanez v. Florida Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation, Bd. of Accountancy (1994)
- Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
- Rubin v. Coors Brewing Co. (1995)
- Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
- 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
- Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliot, Inc. (1997)
- Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Assn., Inc. v. United States (1999)
- Los Angeles Police Department v. United Reporting Publishing Co. (1999)
- United States v. United Foods Inc. (2001)
- Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
- Thompson v. Western States Medical Center (2002)
- Nike, Inc. v. Kasky (2003)
- Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy (2007)
- Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (2010)
- Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA (2010)
- Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
- Matal v. Tam (2017)
- Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
- Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
- Vidal v. Elster (2024)
|
---|
Campaign finance and political speech | |
---|
Anonymous speech | |
---|
State action | |
---|
Official retaliation | |
---|
Boycotts | |
---|
Prisons | |
---|
|
|
|
|
|
---|
Organizations | |
---|
Future Conduct | |
---|
Solicitation | |
---|
Membership restriction | |
---|
Primaries and elections | |
---|
|
|
|
|
---|
|
---|
| |
---|
Meaning of "same offense" | |
---|
After acquittal | |
---|
After conviction | |
---|
After mistrial | |
---|
Multiple punishment | |
---|
Dual sovereignty doctrine | |
---|
Other | |
---|
|
| |
|
|
|