Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (15-274)

argument 15-274

Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 24m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the constitutional issue at the heart of Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument this morning in case fifteen two seventy four, whole women's health versus Hellerstadt. Ms. Touty?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court. The Texas requirements undermine the careful balance struck in Casey between states' legitimate interests in regulating abortion and women's fundamental liberty to make personal decisions about their pregnancies. They are unnecessary health regulations that create substantial obstacles to abortion access.

John G. Roberts 0:30

Ms. Tody, there is a preliminary question. Would you uh address that? That this claim is precluded. And let's take first the claim that was in the prior litigation. W let's assume that they're separate claims. Well let's take the admitting privileges. That was argued. And decided Why isn't it precluded?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 0:58

Your Honor, it's not precluded because material facts relevant to the claim developed subsequent to entry of judgment in the Abbott case.

Unknown 1:07

But you could have amended you could have asked for supplemental briefing. I mean the new action is filed six days after uh The Supreme Court issues its decision in this case, you could ask for supplemental briefing.

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 1:22

In Abbott, the plaintiffs brought the the new facts to the attention of the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals said that it would only consider evidence in the trial record in rendering its decision and it held that the evidence in the trial record was speculative, that there wasn't a sufficient basis to conclude that any doctor would be unable to obtain admitting privileges or that any clinic would be forced to close as a result of the admitting privileges requirement.

John G. Roberts 1:48

But you're a you made allegations concerning those same claims. Uh I mean is your argument that when you have allegations on a facial challenge and the facial challenge is resolved against you that all you have to do is come up with new evidence and then you can start over again?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 2:03

No, Your Honor. Um the the the evidence must be material and it must be newly developed. So newly discovered evidence wouldn't be sufficient. If it was evidence that was available at the time of the first suit, but the plaintiffs merely hadn't discovered the evidence or didn't bring it forward, that wouldn't provide the basis for a subsequent suit. But evidence that develops after judgment in the first suit that is material to the claims does provide sufficient basis for a airport.

Unknown 2:32

And what's this key new evidence?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 2:34

The um the evidence is the clinic closures that resulted from enforcement, actual enforcement of the admitting privileges requirement. So the the first suit was a pre enforcement challenge. Um it was before the law took effect and the court concluded that there was uh n not sufficient evidence that any doctor would actually be unable to obtain admitting privileges or that any clinic would actually

Samuel A. Alito 3:00

specific evidence in the record in this case with respect to why any particular clinic closed. Basically your argument is uh that the law took effect and after that point there was a decrease in the number of clinics. So suppose you win here. And uh the state then examines what happened in each of these clinics and comes up with evidence showing that in quite a few instances the closure was due to other factors. And so then they would then could they take the position, well, uh the decision of this court holding that the law is facially unconstitutional is not binding on us by race judicata, and so you would have to sue them again and they would be able to make the same argument you're making now. Is that correct?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 3:53

Um No, Your Honor, I didn't know. Um well f first of all the the state had an opportunity to bring forward evidence in this case about the reasons why the

Samuel A. Alito 4:04

burden?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 4:05

Uh no, Your Honor, not in the first instance, but the plaintiffs came forward with evidence um and and the state did not offer anything to to rebut the evidence, which was more than sufficient to support the district court's finding that H B two was the cause of the clinic closures.

John G. Roberts 4:21

What what evidence is that?

Sarah R. Tadd (Unknown) 4:23

Um there are a couple of things, Your Honor.