The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a ruling from a lower court allowing a state clerk to be sued for telling a pregnant teenager she must notify her parents before seeking to obtain an abortion without their consent.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed in 2018 after a Missouri teenager accused state clerk Michelle Chapman of violating her rights when the 17-year-old sought an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. The Supreme Court voted to return the case to the lower courts to have it dismissed in a remedy known as the Munsingwear vacatur.
SUPREME COURT TAKES UP FIRST CRYPTOCURRENCY CASE
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned a solo dissent in the case, arguing the Munsingwear maneuver was misinterpreted in the case and has “drifted away from the doctrine’s foundational moorings.”
“In my view, it is crucial that we hold the line and limit the availability of Munsingwear vacatur to truly exceptional cases,” she wrote in her dissent.
The decision comes after the teenager, only referred to as Jane Doe, sought to obtain an abortion without parental consent but was told by Chapman she would not be able to. Under Missouri law, teenagers must obtain parental consent before receiving an abortion. However, minors can bypass that rule by requesting a court hearing.
When Doe went to court to seek a judicial bypass, Chapman told her she would need to notify her parents of the hearing before it could take place. Doe then opted to forgo the hearing and traveled to Illinois to receive the abortion instead.
The teenager sued Chapman for allegedly violating her constitutional rights. The lower courts ruled that Chapman could not be granted quasi-judicial immunity, which typically grants court workers qualified immunity when they violate a constitutional limit. The lawsuit was later thrown out after both parties agreed to dismiss the charges.
Chapman sought to appeal the lawsuit last year, arguing it was no longer relevant because of the Supreme Court’s ruling last year to overturn Roe v. Wade, which paved the way for Missouri to implement a new law criminalizing abortion in all cases except for in cases when the mother’s life is in danger. Because of the changing precedent, Chapman argued she had unfairly been denied qualified immunity and that a judicial bypass would not be required even if Roe was upheld.
The state clerk requested the Supreme Court to consider the case last year, arguing the lawsuit should be handed back down to the lower courts due to the changing precedent.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
However, Doe’s attorneys argued the lawsuit should be written off as moot because both the teenager and Chapman agreed to dismiss the case — meaning it no longer matters whether Chapman is considered immune.
Jackson agreed with that sentiment, arguing that because Chapman and Doe had already agreed to dismiss the lawsuit before Roe was overturned, it should not be considered unfair that Chapman had lost her right to appeal the case.