The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Wednesday, November 29, 1989
Decision: Monday, June 25, 1990
Issues: Privacy, Abortion, Including Contraceptives
Categories: abortion

Advocates

Janet Benshoof (Argued the cause for Hodgson)
John R. Tunheim (Chief Deputy Attorney General of Minnesota argued the cause for Minnesota)

Facts of the Case

Under Section 2 of a Minnesota statute regulating a minor's access to abortion, women under 18 were denied access to the procedure until 48 hours after both their parents had been notified. Exceptions were made in the cases of medical emergencies and women who were victims of parental abuse. Section 6 of the law allowed the courts to judicially bypass Section 2 if the young woman could maturely demonstrate that notification would be unwise.

Question

Did the Minnesota abortion notification statute unconstitutionally restrict a minor's access to having an abortion?

Conclusion

The Court found Section 2 of the statute unconstitutional because requiring notification of both parents, whether or not both wanted to know or had taken responsibility for raising the child, did not serve a legitimate state interest. The Court favored notification of only one parent and a 48 hour waiting period. The Court upheld Section 6 of the law.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Minnesota, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Due Process
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
Rehnquist
Voted with the minority, joined Marshall's dissent
Brennan
Voted with the majority, joined Kennedy's concurrence
White
Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Voted with the minority, joined Marshall's dissent
Blackmun
Wrote a dissent
Stevens
Wrote a special concurrence
O'Connor
Wrote a special concurrence, joined Kennedy's concurrence
Scalia
Wrote a special concurrence
Kennedy
Full Opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 U.S. 417 (1990),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1125/>
(last visited ).