US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
516 U.S. 474
Subscribe to Cases that cite 516 U.S. 474OCTOBER TERM, 1995
Per Curiam
DALTON, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES ET AL. v. LITTLE ROCK FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-1025. Decided March 18, 1996
Respondents, Medicaid providers and physicians who perform abortions in Arkansas, filed this suit against petitioner state officials, claiming that Amendment 68 of the State Constitution, § 1 of which prohibits using state funds to pay for any abortion except one to save the mother's life, conflicts with a requirement in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, as amended by the 1994 version of the "Hyde Amendment," that States fund abortions where the pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest. The District Court, inter alia, enjoined enforcement of the amendment in its entirety for so long as the State accepts federal Medicaid funds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.
Held: Amendment 68 can be enjoined only to the extent that it imposes obligations inconsistent with Title XIX. In a pre-emption case such as this, state law is displaced only to the extent that it actually conflicts with federal law. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U. S. 190, 204. Because Amendment 68 was challenged only insofar as it conflicted with Title XIX, it was improper to enjoin its application to funding that does not involve the Medicaid program. The injunction is overbroad in its temporal scope as well. The Hyde Amendment is not permanent legislation; it was enacted as part of the appropriation of funds for certain Executive Departments for one fiscal year. Its history-before 1994, it limited federal funding to those abortions necessary to save the mother's life-identifies the possibility that a different version may be enacted in the future. Thus, it was improper for the District Court to enjoin Amendment 68's enforcement for so long as the State accepted federal Medicaid funds.
PER CURIAM.
Respondents in this case are Medicaid providers and physicians who perform abortions in the State of Arkansas. In November 1993, they filed suit against petitioners, who are Arkansas state officials, seeking injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to Amendment 68 of the Arkansas Constitution, § 1 of which prohibits the use of state funds to pay for any abortion "except to save the mother's life." Their claim was that this provision is inconsistent with a requirement in Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 79 Stat. 343, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1396 et seq., as affected by the 1994 version of the "Hyde Amendment," that States fund medically necessary abortions where the pregnancy resulted from an act of rape or incest.1 The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted summary judgment for respondents and enjoined Amendment 68; the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 60 F.3d 497 (1995). Petitioners sought certiorari with respect to two aspects of the case: (1) the District Court's holding that "[u]nder the Hyde Amendment ... federallaw requires Arkansas and other states that participate in the federal Medicaid program to pay for abortions in cases where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, as well as abortions to save the mother's life," 860 F. Supp. 609, 612 (1994), and (2) the District Court's enjoining of Amendment 68 "in its entirety for so long as the State of Arkansas accepts federal funds pursuant to the Medicaid Act," id., at 628 (emphasis added).2 We grant certiorari as to the second
1 The 1994 Hyde Amendment, so named for its sponsor, Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, was enacted as § 509 of the Department of Labor Appropriations Act, 1994, 107 Stat. 1082. Section 509 directs that "[n]one of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be expended for any abortion except when it is made known to the Federal entity or official to which funds are appropriated under this Act that such procedure is necessary to save the life of the mother or that the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest." 107 Stat. 1113. The provision was reenacted unchanged for fiscal year 1995. See 108 Stat. 2539.
2 Any uncertainty as to the scope of the District Court's injunction was erased by a subsequent order denying petitioners' motion for stay of judgment. The order declares that "Amendment 68 to the Arkansas Constitution directly conflicts with federal law (the 1994 Hyde Amendment) and is, therefore, null, void and of no effect." App. to Pet. for Cert. D-2. A footnote to this sentence states: "The Court apologizes for the redundancy,
