Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic

Background

The parties in a case that came to the Supreme Court from the Fourth Circuit asked the Court for permission to file extra written arguments before reargument. Respondents moved to file a supplemental brief addressing several issues, including the possible effect of the Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey and whether courts can order injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The record shows the Court considered that motion and issued a limited order.

Reasoning

The central procedural question was which parts of the supplemental brief the Court would allow. The Court granted the request in part: it allowed filing on the potential significance of the Casey decision and on the availability of injunctive relief for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). The Court denied permission to file arguments about the statute’s so‑called hindrance clause. The order also gave petitioners until September 17, 1992, to file a response. Justice O’Connor said she would have allowed the entire brief.

Real world impact

This is a narrow administrative ruling about what the parties may brief before reargument. It lets the Court and the parties focus on Casey’s relevance and on injunctive relief claims, while excluding argument about one clause of the statute. The order does not decide the underlying legal disputes and may be changed after full reargument and further briefing.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the limited ruling and would have allowed the entire supplemental brief to be filed. He explained he wants full discussion and would read and consider the brief and any petitioner comments prior to reargument.