Leavitt v. Jane L.

1996-06-17

Headline: Utah’s post-20-week abortion rule is preserved as the Court reverses a lower court’s invalidation tied to an earlier ban, keeping the later-term restriction in force while the case continues.

Holding: The Court reversed the appeals court, holding that Utah's explicit severability clause shows the Legislature intended each abortion rule to stand alone, so the post-20-week provision cannot be nullified simply because the earlier-term provision was struck down.

Real World Impact:

Keeps Utah's later-term abortion restriction legally in effect for now.
Remands the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.
Limits lower federal courts from nullifying state law based on speculative legislative intent.

Topics: abortion rules, pregnancy time limits, state law interpretation, federal review of state law

Summary

Background

The dispute was between the State of Utah (represented by its governor) and women who sued to challenge Utah’s abortion law. Utah’s 1991 amendments created two rules: one limiting abortions at 20 weeks or less to five specific circumstances (§302(2)), and a separate rule allowing abortions after 20 weeks only in three of those circumstances (§302(3)). The federal district court struck down §302(2) but left §302(3) intact as severable; the Tenth Circuit later invalidated §302(3) not because it violated federal law but because the court concluded it could not stand alone after §302(2) was struck down.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the post-20-week rule could be nullified because it appeared tied to the invalid earlier-term provision. The Supreme Court focused on Utah’s own statute, which contains an explicit severability clause (§76‑7‑317) stating each provision was enacted independently. The majority found the appeals court’s speculation about legislative intent irreconcilable with that clear clause, explained that §302(3) is straightforward and self-operative, and rejected the appeals court’s invented “structural-substantive” distinction. The Court summarily reversed the Tenth Circuit’s severability ruling and remanded the case.

Real world impact

As a result, Utah’s later-term abortion restriction was not automatically nullified by the earlier ruling and remains subject to enforcement while further proceedings continue. The decision prevents a lower federal court’s speculative reading of legislative intent from wiping out a statewide law and sends the matter back to the Court of Appeals for next steps.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, dissented. They argued the Court should not grant review of a purely state-law severability question, urged judicial restraint, and emphasized that courts of appeals are better positioned to interpret state law.