HARTIGAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, et al. v. ZBARAZ et al.
No. 85-673.
Argued November 3, 1987
Decided December 14, 1987
Michael J. Hayes, First Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs for appellant Hartigan were Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General, pro se, Roma Jones Stewart, former Solicitor General, Shawn W. Denney, Solicitor General, and Rita M. Novak, Assistant Attorney General.
Colleen K. Connell argued the cause for appellees. With her on the briefs were Marc O. Beem and Harvey Grossman.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of Nevada by Brian McKay, Attorney General, and Ellen F. Whittemore, Deputy Attorney General; for the State of Ohio et al. by Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Attorney General of Ohio, David J. Kovach, Assistant Attorney General, Robert K. Corbin, Attorney General of Arizona, Linley E. Pearson, Attorney General of Indiana, Hubert H. Humphrey HI, Attorney General of Minnesota, William L. Webster, Attorney General of Missouri, and David R. Wilkinson, Attorney General of Utah; for Americans United for Life Legal Defense Fund by Dennis J. Horan, Edward R. Grant, Maura K. Quinlan, Clarke D. Forsythe, and Ann-Louise Lohr; for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights by Steven Frederick McDowell; for the Family Research Council et al. by Lynn D. Wardle; and for the United States Catholic Conference by John A. Liekweg and Mark E. Chopko.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists et al. by Benjamin W. Heine-man, Jr., Carter G. Phillips, Ann E. Allen, Stephan E. Lawton, and Laurie R. Rockett; for the American Psychological Association by Donald N. Bersoff and David W. Ogden; for the American Public Health Association et al. by Patricia Hennessey and Dara Klassel; for the Judicial Consent for Minors Lawyer Referral Panel et al. by Jamie Ann Sabino; for the National Abortion Rights Action League et al. by Rhonda Copelon, Anne E. Simon, Nadine Taub, and Kathryn Kolbert; and for Pregnant Minors Desiring Confidential Abortions in Minnesota and Massachusetts et al. by Janet Benshoof, Lynn M. Paltrow, Rachael N. Pine, William Z. Pentelovitch, and John H. Henn.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Life League, Inc., by Thomas Patrick Monaghan; for American Victims of Abortion by James Bopp, Jr.; and for Concerned Women for America by Charles F. Simon and Jordan W. Lorence.
Per Curiam.
The judgment below is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.