Judge Asks for Briefing on Whether 13th Amendment Protects Abortion Rights

 In United States v. Handy, (D DC, Feb. 6, 2023), a D.C. federal district court refused to dismiss a criminal case charging ten defendants with conspiracy to block access to a Washington, D.C. abortion clinic. The court said in part:

In part, Defendant moves to dismiss the Superseding Indictment based on the Supreme Court's statement in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. ... that “the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion.”... [I]t appears that Defendant’s constitutional argument is predicated on the false legal premise that the predicate statute at issue in the Superseding Indictment only regulates access to abortion. In fact, it regulates a broad category of “reproductive health services,” including, among other things, “counselling or referral services.” See 18 U.S.C. § 248(5). Nevertheless, to the extent that Defendants seek resolution of this matter via a constitutional holding, the Court will require additional briefing....

Here, the “issue” before the Court in Dobbs was not whether any provision of the Constitution provided a right to abortion. Rather, the question before the Court in Dobbs was whether the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provided such a right....  [I]n consideration of the Supreme Court’s longstanding admonition against overapplying its own precedent, it is entirely possible that the Court might have held in Dobbs that some other provision of the Constitution provided a right to access reproductive services had that issue been raised. However, it was not raised. 

Of those provisions that might contain some right to access to such services, the Thirteenth Amendment has received substantial attention among scholars and, briefly, in one federal Court of Appeals decision. E.g., Andrew Koppelman, Forced Labor: A Thirteenth Amendment Defense of Abortion, 84 Nw. U. L. Rev. 480 (1990); Jane L. v. Bangerter, 61 F.3d 1505, 1514-15 (10th Cir. 1995). Therefore, and to ensure the correct and just disposition of this criminal action, the parties shall address in their forthcoming briefing: (1) whether the scope of Dobbs is in fact confined to the Fourteenth Amendment and (2) whether, if so, any other provision of the Constitution could confer a right to abortion as an original matter....

Politico reports on the court's Order.

Court Refuses To Dismiss Indictment In Tree of Life Synagogue Case

In United States v. Bowers, (WD PA, Oct. 15, 2020), a Pennsylvania federal district court refused to dismiss an indictment under the federal Hate Crimes Prevention Act and the Church Arson Act brought against defendant charged in the 2018 attack on Pittsburgh's Tree of Life Synagogue. (Full text of Superseding Indictment.) The court rejected both the facial and the as-applied challenge to the Hate Crimes Act. The court said in part:

Each federal court to have considered the constitutionality of § 249(a)(1) has found it to be a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment....

[T]he congressional intent behind §249(a)(1) makes clear that Congress intended to prohibit violence on the basis of real or perceived religions that “were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the [Reconstruction] amendments.”... [T]herefore ... §249(a)(1) includes protection for Jewish people in that they were considered a distinct race when the Thirteenth Amendment was-applied.

Upholding the constitutionality of the Church Arson Act against a facial attack, the court said in part:

Congress had a rational basis to conclude that the conduct regulated by § 247 substantially affects interstate commerce.

Responding to defendant's as-applied challenge, the court said in part:

The Defendant’s as-applied challenge requires consideration of a developed factual record and the application of the statute to those facts. Thus, it is premature to determine the as-applied issue at this time.