The Catholic League, Southern California Chapter v. Feminist Women's Health Center, Inc. No. A-238
Justice Rehnquist, acting alone as the Circuit Justice for the region, refused to block a California appeals court ruling that stopped the Los Angeles County District Attorney from handing over roughly 16,000 aborted fetuses to a religious group for a memorial service.
He found no real federal constitutional problem with the state court's decision, which rested on California's own separation-of-church-and-state rules, so he let the block on a religious ceremony stand while the case could still be appealed further.
“the First Amendment does not entitle applicants to have the State enhance the impact of their speech by providing the subjects of a funeral service.”
Explaining why blocking a religious burial service did not violate the applicants' free speech or religion rights.
How it got here: A California appeals court ruled the planned religious handover violated the state constitution; the state supreme court denied review; applicants sought an emergency stay from the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A container company found roughly 16,000 aborted fetuses at a shut-down pathology lab and turned them over to the Los Angeles County District Attorney. After weighing offers from various groups, the District Attorney decided to give the fetuses to a religious organization for a burial service at a private cemetery. A different organization sued, arguing that handing the fetuses to a religious group for a religious service would violate church-state separation rules. The applicants seeking the religious service then asked the Supreme Court to intervene.
The question before the Court
Could a group be allowed to hold a religious burial service for thousands of aborted fetuses in county custody, over a state-law block on the idea?
Why it matters
The ruling meant the fetuses were interred without the religious ceremony the applicants wanted, at least for the time being. It also shows how a single justice can quickly resolve emergency requests without the full Court weighing in, and how state constitutions can impose separation-of-church-and-state limits stricter than federal law requires.
What changes now
The stay was denied, so the state court's block on a religious handover of the fetuses remained in place, and the burial could proceed without the religious ceremony the applicants sought. Rehnquist noted the applicants could still try to bring the case to the full Court, either as an appeal or a petition for review, but he indicated he would reach the same result either way. This was a single Circuit Justice's emergency ruling, not a decision by the full Court.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide any broader question about abortion, fetal remains, or the Establishment Clause under the U.S. Constitution. It only addresses whether the applicants showed a strong enough federal claim to justify pausing a state court's order while further review was sought, and Rehnquist expressly said the underlying issue was governed by California law.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Rehnquist (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- Rehnquist first noted that the Supreme Court cannot review a state court's decision at all if that decision rests entirely on independent state-law grounds that raise no federal question.
- He then asked whether the applicants had shown a genuine federal constitutional problem, since they argued the state court's application of California's church-state rules violated their First Amendment rights to speech, assembly, and religious exercise.
- He reasoned that the state court's order did not stop the applicants from gathering, speaking about abortion, or holding their own memorial service; it only stopped the government from handing over the fetuses specifically for a religious ceremony.
- He concluded that the First Amendment does not give a group the right to have the government supply the physical subject of a memorial service, so no substantial federal question was presented.
- Because the underlying claim was insubstantial as a federal matter, he determined the full Court would be unlikely to take up the case for full review.