Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic
Headline: Court allows a limited supplemental brief on Planned Parenthood’s impact and injunctive relief under a federal civil‑rights law, blocks arguments about the law’s 'hindrance' clause, and lets the other side respond by September 17, 1992.
Holding: The Court allowed respondents to file a supplemental brief limited to Planned Parenthood’s relevance and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3), denied arguments about the statute’s hindrance clause, and allowed petitioners to reply.
- Allows respondents to raise Planned Parenthood and injunctive-relief arguments at reargument.
- Bars supplemental arguments specifically about the statute’s "hindrance" clause.
- Gives petitioners until September 17, 1992, to file a supplemental response.
Summary
Background
A party seeking review of a Fourth Circuit decision is preparing for a reargument. The responding side asked permission to file a supplemental brief that would address the possible significance of the Planned Parenthood decision and whether courts can order injunctive relief for violations of 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). The respondents also proposed other arguments, including ones about the statute’s so-called "hindrance" clause.
Reasoning
The Court decided which parts of the proposed supplemental filing should be allowed. It granted leave for the respondents to raise arguments about Planned Parenthood and about the availability of injunctive relief under §1985(3). The Court denied leave to raise arguments specifically addressing the hindrance clause of §1985(3). The order also permitted the party that sought review to file a supplemental response by September 17, 1992. Justice O’Connor would have allowed the entire supplemental filing instead of limiting it.
Real world impact
The ruling shapes what the Justices will see at reargument by allowing some new arguments but keeping others out. It affects only the briefing and preparation for the upcoming reargument, not the final decision on the underlying legal claims. Petitioners and respondents must follow the filing deadlines and the narrowed scope set by the Court.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Blackmun, dissented from the limitation and would have allowed the full supplemental brief to be filed and considered before reargument.
Opinions in this case:
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?