WPC/ 2 B5JCourierNew Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook Italic#|yolbookAPLASIIN.PRSx  @hhhhPijX@#|y25<cq Zc.New Century SchoolbookNew Century Schoolbook Italic"m^8;Noo)CCdy8C88oooooooooo88yyyYQo~čzCyCyd)ooYsdCkz?;w?zdsoY]Nzkkk`CyCyC8CC!CCCCCCCCCCs?oooooȟYddddQ?Q?Q?Q?zddddzzzzkosddkdsoooYYYYsddddkkkkkkzzQ?Q?Q?Q?ow?????zzzzddȧYYY~]~]~]~]NNNzzzzzzĜkz`z`z`s?zY~]NkksdzNy8yd;YUUoooCgwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR2Xc& c& -yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P[G' GGe xzC^XCN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^ #-AAa_'':G ' AAAAAAAAAA GGG4VTTT[TN[a/A[Nn_[N[TJN_TrRRG'G'G:AA4C:'?G%#E%hG:CA46-G?[??8'G'G' ''u''''''''''C%TATATATATAu]T4T:T:T:T:/%/%/%/%_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GR?TA[C[:[:R?[:NCTATATAT4T4T4T4[CT:T:T:T:[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/%/%/%/%A[EN%N%N%N%N%_G_G_G_G[:[:uaT4T4T4J6J6J6J6N-N-N-_G_G_G_G_G_Gr[R?G8G8G8[CN%_GT4J6N-R?R?[C[:_GNG G:#422AAA'#aaA'VVAa'--Au::uGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@"m^ '/AAac'':G ' GAAAAAAAAAA GGG4WRTT[TN[a/GVNn_[N[VNP_RlRPN'G'G:CA4G4'?G'%A'hG:CA44)G=[::6'G'G' ''u''''''''''A'RCRCRCRCRCfTT4T4T4T4T4/'/'/'/'_G[:[:[:[:_G_G_G_GP:RC[G[:[:P:[:NCRCRCRCT4T4T4T4[GT4T4T4T4[?[?[?[?[?[?aGaG/'/'/'/'GVAN'N'N'N'N'_G_G_G_G[:[:r[V4V4V4N4N4N4N4P)P)P)_G_G_G_G_G_Gl[P:N6N6N6[GN'_GV4N4P)P:P:[G[:_GNG L:'422AAA1+aaA'WWAa' --:u''::oGGu-u'GG@@S G&&@@@SZSSGssFFz/G `S:0P]sssFFzZSSSS3`ZZZFFM:@e@@SSSTJN@F0G:G3G:TFV='&T@P@hGT=K:T@Z@A@EF3G3QCY=T@]PZPJ3F&&@CCPJHFSJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ3333333FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF&&&&&&&&&&&&@@@@@@@CCCCCCCCCCCCPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPTGT'TQZ'Q@2 cZccG"m^AE[¾0NNuANAAAAh_ܾ夤NNu0huN}JEJϏuhl[}}}pNNNANN'NNNNNNNNNNJ麨huuuu_J_J_J_Juuuu}uu}uhhhhuuuu}}}}}}_J_J_J_JJJJJJuu¨hhhllll[[[嶤}pppJhl[}}uNAuEhccNFÂNN0[[<<uu0[NэA'MM捍]@s:`捍fsѨ`sfszNMϏzsffzfMMfffffffMMMMMMMMMMMMNN& -yC8 h0y P['CXP&u![2*d[ P['CP&[G' ԦGG P['C^P[G' GGe xzC^X&4NA> P['CPu![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&PфtzeoKp[pPp[o`=gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQX P['CPu![2*[e xzCX&)o=3no P['C&P &r!Y1)LY P['CP)o=3no P['C&P)o=3Roe xzC&X(WS\(SB"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%jjjrjbrzP# ?d  dd^_ SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES #[ P['CdP# ^_dd  2  &Syllabus  J #GG P['CԦ^P#    #[ P['CdP#r%d uB o BRAY v. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH CLINIC &Syllabusr#o P['Cn&P#  ddd} BRAY et al. v. ALEXANDRIA WOMEN'S HEALTH  J $dCLINIC et al. 1   d}dd certiorari to the united states court of appeals for !{the fourth circuit  uB  H #[ P['CdP# dddx  No. 90!985. Argued October 15, 1991"Reargued October 6, 1992" MDecided January 13, 1993 *d *,   d , , Respondents, abortion clinics and supporting organizations, sued to enjoin petitioners, an association and individuals who organize and coordinate antiabortion demonstrations, from conducting demonstrations at clinics in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area. The District Court held that, by conspiring to deprive women seeking abortions of their right to interstate travel, petitioners had violated the first clause of 42 U. jS S. FS C.   1985(3), which prohibits conspiracies to deprive ``any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws''; ruled for respondents on their pendent statelaw claims of trespass and public nuisance; as relief on these three claims, enjoined petitioners from trespassing on, or obstructing access to, specified clinics; and, pursuant to 42 U. /S S.  S C.  { 1988, ordered petitioners to pay respondents attorney's fees and costs on the   1985(3) claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed.Ƭ  uB  *  , , Held:Ƭ X X 1.The first clause of  l 1985(3) does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics. Pp.  S 2!14.Ƭ X X  (a)  S Respondents have not shown that opposition to abortion qualifies alongside race discrimination as an ``otherwise classbased, invidiously discriminatory animus [underlying] the conspirators'  uB action,'' as is required under Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U. S S. 88, 102, in order to prove a private conspiracy in violation of  M 1985(3)'s first clause. Respondents' claim that petitioners' opposition to abortion reflects an animus against women in general must be) "1!"(( rejected. The ``animus'' requirement demands at least a purpose that  uB focuses upon women by reason of their sex, whereas the record indicates that petitioners' demonstrations are not directed specifically at women, but are intended to protect the victims of abortion, stop its practice, and reverse its legalization. Opposition to abortion cannot reasonably be presumed to reflect a sexbased intent; there are common and respectable reasons for opposing abortion other than a derogatory view of women as a class. This Court's prior decisions indicate that the disfavoring of abortion, although only women engage  uBo in the activity, is not ipso facto invidious discrimination against women as a class. Pp. "S 3!9.Ƭ  X X  (b)  S Respondents have also not shown that petitioners ``aimed at interfering with rights'' that are ``protected against private, as well as official, encroachment,'' a second prerequisite to proving a private  uB conspiracy in violation of  @ 1985(3)'s first clause. Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.  S S. 825, 833. Although the right to interstate travel is constitutionally protected against private interference in at least some  uB' contexts, Carpenters makes clear that a  ` 1985(3) private conspiracy  uB must be ``aimed at'' that right. Ibid. That was not established here. Although respondents showed that substantial numbers of women travel interstate to reach the clinics in question, it was irrelevant to petitioners' opposition whether or not such travel preceded the intended abortions. Moreover, as far as appears from the record, petitioners' proposed demonstrations would erect ``actual barriers to  uB( ... movement'' only intrastate. Zobel v. Williams, 457 U. S S. 55, 60, n. H S 6. Respondents have conceded that this intrastate restriction is not applied discriminatorily against interstate travelers, and the right  uBM to interstate travel is therefore not implicated. Ibid. Nor can respondents'   1985(3) claim be based on the right to abortion, which is a right protected only against state interference and therefore  uBr cannot be the object of a purely private conspiracy. See Carpenters,  uB) supra, at 833. Pp. S 9!14.Ƭ X X  (c)  S The dissenters err in considering whether respondents have established a violation of  : 1985(3)'s second, ``hindrance'' clause, which covers conspiracies ``for the purpose of preventing or hindering ... any State ... from giving or securing to all persons ... the equal protection of the laws.'' A ``hindrance''clause claim was not stated in the complaint, was not considered by either of the lower courts, was not contained in the questions presented on certiorari, and was not suggested by either party as a question for argument or decision here. Nor is it readily determinable that respondents have established a ``hindrance''clause violation. The language in the first  uB clause of    1985(3) that is the source of the Griffin animus requirement also appears in the ``hindrance'' clause. Second, respondents'"D   ``hindrance'' ``claim'' would fail unless the ``hindrance'' clause applies to private conspiracies aimed at rights constitutionally protected only  uBn against official encroachment. Cf. Carpenters. Finally, the district court did not find that petitioners' purpose was to prevent or hinder law enforcement. Pp. S 14!20.Ƭ X X 2.  S The award of attorney's fees and costs under  @ 1988 must be vacated because respondents were not entitled to relief under    1985(3). However respondents'  ` 1985(3) claims were not, prior to  uB this decision, ``wholly insubstantial and frivolous,'' Bell v. Hood, 327 U. f S S. 678, 682!683, so as to deprive the District Court of subjectmatter jurisdiction over the action. Consideration should be given on remand to the question whether the District Court's judgment on the statelaw claims alone can support the injunction that was entered. Pp.  S 20!21. Ƭ   *  , , 914 F.  S 2d 582, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.Ƭ  uB  Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist,  uBQ C.J., and White, Kennedy, and Thomas, JJ., joined. Kennedy, J.,  uB filed a concurring opinion. Souter, J., filed an opinion concurring in  uB the judgment in part and dissenting in part. Stevens, J., filed a  uBv dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined. O'Connor, J., filed  uB- a dissenting opinion, in which Blackmun, J., joined.