Ada v. Guam Society of Obstetricians & Gynecologists

Background

Guam enacted Pub. L. 20-134, a law that outlaws almost all abortions except in medical emergencies. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the law is unconstitutional on its face, meaning it struck the law down in all its applications. The Supreme Court declined to review that decision, and Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice White, wrote a dissent from the denial of review.

Reasoning

At issue is whether a law should be invalidated in every possible case or judged only in the specific ways it is applied. Justice Scalia argues that facial invalidation is appropriate only when no set of circumstances would allow the law to be applied constitutionally. He explains that most challenges should be “as applied” — stopping unconstitutional enforcement in particular situations — and cites prior cases saying facial challenges are hard to win. Scalia says that under existing abortion precedent, parts of Guam’s ban could be constitutional, for example after the point of viability, so the Ninth Circuit should have considered whether any constitutional applications exist. He would have granted review and sent the case back for that narrower analysis.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, the Ninth Circuit’s full invalidation remains in effect, making Guam’s near-total ban unenforceable for now. The ruling affects people in Guam and could influence challenges to similar territorial or state laws. The denial is not a final decision on the law’s merits, and further litigation could revisit which parts, if any, could lawfully be enforced.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia’s dissent emphasizes limiting facial challenges and would direct lower courts to identify any constitutional uses before striking a law entirely.