Janklow v. Planned Parenthood

Background

The dispute involves a South Dakota law that requires a doctor to notify a pregnant minor’s parent at least 48 hours before an abortion. The Eighth Circuit declared that law unconstitutional, concluding that a large fraction of minors seeking pre-viability abortions would be unduly burdened. The clinic and challengers won in the appeals court, and the State asked the Supreme Court to review that decision.

Reasoning

The central legal question was what standard courts should use when deciding whether an abortion law is invalid on its face. The Supreme Court declined to take the case, so it did not resolve whether the stricter “no set of circumstances” test from an earlier case controls or whether a “large fraction” test applies as the Eighth Circuit used. Justice Stevens wrote a short memorandum supporting denial and criticized the rigid “no set of circumstances” language as unnecessary dictum. Justice Scalia dissented from the denial, arguing the Court should have taken the case to clarify the proper rule and to resolve conflicting lower-court approaches.

Real world impact

Because the Supreme Court refused review, the Eighth Circuit’s judgment remains effective in this case and the South Dakota notification law stays invalidated there. The broader disagreement among federal appeals courts about how to judge facial challenges to abortion laws remains unresolved. That uncertainty will continue to affect pregnant minors, doctors, and state lawmakers until a future court provides a clearer national rule.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Scalia’s dissent urged review to settle a circuit split and to preserve the earlier Salerno standard, criticizing Justice Stevens’ reliance on academic commentary.