2023 Guam 11
Guam2023Background
- In 1990 Guam enacted P.L. 20-134, a near-total criminal ban on abortion; the District Court of Guam permanently enjoined it as unconstitutional, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
- After Dobbs (142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022)) overturned Roe, the Attorney General moved in federal court to dissolve the injunction and revive P.L. 20-134.
- Governor Leon Guerrero sought a declaratory judgment under 7 GCA § 4104 asking this court to declare P.L. 20-134 void ab initio or, alternatively, impliedly repealed by later Guam statutes regulating abortion.
- The Supreme Court of Guam exercised original jurisdiction, rejected challenges to jurisdiction and ripeness, and limited review to the implied-repeal question (declining to reach ultra vires/organicity).
- The court held that, assuming P.L. 20-134 was ever valid, it has been impliedly repealed by subsequent Guam statutes (parental-consent, informed-consent, partial-birth ban, and reporting laws) and thus has no force or effect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Leon Guerrero) | Defendant's Argument (Attorney General / Legislature / Amici) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Standing to hear §4104 request | §4104 permits Governor to seek advisory declaratory relief on matters of great public interest; injury-in-fact not fatal where statutory test met | AG and some amici argued lack of Article III–style standing, ripeness, or that court should abstain | Court exercised §4104 jurisdiction: standing requirement relaxed for Governor/Legislature where §4104's criteria met; dismissed motions to dismiss |
| Implied repeal of P.L. 20-134 by later statutes | Subsequent Guam statutes create a comprehensive regulatory scheme on abortion that irreconcilably conflicts with P.L. 20-134, so P.L. 20-134 was repealed by implication | AG argued P.L. 20-134 was not "in existence" after federal injunction and later statutes did not evince intent to repeal the old ban | Court held the later statutes irreconcilably conflict with the ban; P.L. 20-134 has been impliedly repealed and has no force or effect |
| Ultra vires / void ab initio (Legislature's authority under Organic Act) | Governor urged P.L. 20-134 was ultra vires in 1990 and therefore void from enactment because it conflicted with prevailing constitutional law | AG and Legislature argued courts should not retroactively ‘‘erase’’ laws or that separation-of-powers / Speech and Debate concerns counsel restraint | Court declined to decide ultra vires issue (discretion under §4104); concurring justice would find P.L. 20-134 void ab initio |
| AG's motion to dismiss for ripeness/mootness | N/A (Governor sought relief) | AG argued matter not ripe/moot while federal injunction remains and relief would be advisory | Court denied motion to dismiss: Questions are purely legal, of great public interest, and not moot; declaratory relief appropriate under §4104 |
Key Cases Cited
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (U.S. 2022) (overruled Roe and returned abortion-regulation authority to states/territories)
- Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (U.S. 1973) (established constitutional right to abortion later overruled by Dobbs)
- Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 962 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming permanent injunction against P.L. 20-134)
- Guam Soc’y of Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. Ada, 776 F. Supp. 1422 (D. Guam 1990) (district court permanently enjoining P.L. 20-134)
- McCorvey v. Hill, 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004) (holding comprehensive regulatory schemes can impliedly repeal older criminal abortion bans)
- Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Brnovich, 524 P.3d 262 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022) (refused to find implied repeal where statutes were read as a coherent regulatory framework)
- People v. Higuera, 625 N.W.2d 444 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001) (no implied repeal where later statutes regulated but did not clearly displace a general criminal prohibition)