Joseph A. Califano, Etc. v. Cora McRae No. A-46
Headline: Declining to block the Hyde Amendment, Justice Marshall abstains from granting a stay and directs applicants to seek relief from Justices who joined recent abortion rulings.
Holding: Justice Marshall declined to grant a stay preventing enforcement of the Hyde Amendment’s Medicaid abortion funding restriction, abstaining and advising applicants to seek relief from a Justice who joined Maher and Beal.
- No stay granted by Justice Marshall; remand and district court reconsideration will proceed.
- Applicants must seek relief from a Justice who joined Maher and Beal.
- This is a procedural abstention, not a final ruling on Medicaid abortion funding.
Summary
Background
Section 209 of Public Law 94-439 generally prohibits the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare from using federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions. A federal district court in the Eastern District of New York had enjoined the law. On June 29, 1977, the Court vacated that judgment and sent the case back to the district court for further consideration in light of Maher v. Roe and Beal v. Doe. After that order, the parties applied to the Court for a stay to block enforcement of the vacatur or to preserve their position while seeking rehearing.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a Justice should block the Court’s earlier vacatur while the lower court reconsiders or while a rehearing petition is filed. Justice Marshall noted that the controlling precedents for rehearing were Maher and Beal and said he had dissented in both cases. He described the applicants’ requests as essentially asking the Court to reconsider its vacatur of the district court’s injunction. Citing this Court’s Rule 58, which allows a petition for rehearing only at the request of a Justice who concurred in the decision, he concluded he would not act on the application.
Real world impact
Because Justice Marshall abstained, he did not grant the requested stay and suggested that applicants make their request to one of the Justices who had joined the Maher and Beal decisions. The remand to the district court for reconsideration will proceed and the district court will again consider the issues. This action is procedural and does not decide the underlying question about Medicaid funding for abortions; the matter could be revisited by the district court or the Justices.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Marshall emphasized that he had dissented in Maher and Beal and relied on the Court’s Rule 58 to explain why he would abstain and refer the application to a Justice who concurred in those decisions.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?