Minnesota. Attorney General. Solicitor General.

When Archibald G. Bush died on January 16, 1966, he left the bulk of his estate to the Bush Foundation, a non-profit charitable corporation incorporated on February 24, 1953. He names Herschel S. Arrowood and Mary Jane Dickman as executors. A power struggle soon developed over control both of administration of the estate and of the Bush Foundation itself. This resulted in extensive litigation, in some of which the attorney general's office participated as co-litigant or as amicus curiae. The litigation is briefly summarized as follows:

(1) Edyth Bush, et al. vs. Herschel S. Arrowood, et al., 1968-1969. A faction of the Bush Foundation board of directors, headed by Archibald Bush's widow, filed a complaint against the other directors and the attorney general. The law firm of Faegre and Benson was retained as special counsel for the state.

(2) Archibald Bush Estate, 1971-1975. The attorney general's office protested the amount awarded to the executors of the estate and their lawyers.

(3) Edyth Bush, et al. vs. Arrowood, et al., 1971-1976. Bush's widow sought to renounce the will and to recover half of the estate. After her death in November, 1972, her executors, headed by H. Clifford Lee, carried on the suit with an appeal to district court.

(4) Edyth Bush Estate. There was a question as to which state, Minnesota or Florida, would have jurisdiction over Mrs. Bush's estate, since she died at her residence in Florida.

(5) H. Clifford Lee, et al. vs. Elmer L. Andersen, et al., 1972-1976. Two directors of the Bush Foundation, H. Clifford Lee and E. G. Banks, filed a complaint against ten of the remaining directors, including Elmer L. Anderson, over alleged improprieties in the sale of 800,000 shares of 3M stock by the Bush Foundation. The defendants counter-claimed against the plaintiffs, seeking their removal as directors of the foundation. The attorney general appeared as amicus curiae .

In 1981, Minnesota passed legislation that required doctors, hospitals, and clinics to notify both parents at least 48 hours before performing abortions on women under the age of 18. A lawsuit seeking to have the law voided was filed on July 30, 1981, one day before the law was to go into effect. It was brought by three physicians, including Jane Hodgson, an obstetrician and gynecologist who had spoken out against restrictive abortion laws for years, several minors, one parent, several clinics, and Planned Parenthood of Minnesota. The suit contended that the law violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment by interfering with a minor’s right to choose and unreasonably interfered with the decision to have an abortion. They also contended that fear of a negative parental reaction and possible harassment would discourage many young women from seeking safe abortions and would discourage many clinics and hospitals from providing abortions. U.S. District Judge Donald Alsop granted an injunction of the mandatory notification provisions of the law which triggered another provision of the law, the judicial bypass. The bypass allowed young women to petition a judge to grant an abortion without notification of their parents. No notice to either parent was needed if the woman was married, living away from home and supporting herself, if prompt action was needed to save her life, or if she was a victim of abuse or neglect from her parents. In confidential hearings before the judge, the woman would have to prove that at least one of the above provisions applied and that she was mature enough and capable of giving conformed consent to go through with the abortion.

Neither side of the abortion debate was satisfied with the above solution; each began gathering statistics on the abortion rate for juveniles and testimony from medical experts and court officials on how the law was working. Hodgson, et al., again challenged the Minnesota law in U.S. District Court in early 1986. The judge struck down the law as unconstitutional and an unreasonable restriction on a young woman's rights. In 1987, the case was appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which initially upheld the district court decision but later reversed itself. Hodgson, et al., then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard the case during the 1989 term. On June 25, 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the two parent Minnesota notification law as constitutional because of the judicial bypass procedure provision and thus affirmed the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision.