Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The authority to regulate or prohibit abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives, overturning the precedents of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Facts:
- The State of Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act.
- The Act prohibits a person from intentionally or knowingly performing or inducing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the fetus is determined to be greater than 15 weeks.
- The Act provides exceptions for medical emergencies or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality.
- Jackson Women’s Health Organization is an abortion clinic in Mississippi.
- The clinic and one of its doctors provide abortions, including for women who are past 15 weeks of gestation.
Procedural Posture:
- Jackson Women's Health Organization sued Thomas E. Dobbs, the State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (a federal trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought to block the enforcement of Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, arguing it violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Jackson Women's Health Organization and issued a permanent injunction preventing the law from taking effect.
- The State of Mississippi appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (an intermediate federal appellate court).
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the state's 15-week ban on abortion was unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent.
- The State of Mississippi petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which the Court granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the U.S. Constitution confer a right to obtain an abortion?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No, the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The right to an abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition, nor is it an essential component of 'ordered liberty.' Roe and Casey were egregiously wrong from the start because their reasoning was exceptionally weak and they lacked any grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent. The court's analysis in Roe improperly created a legislative-like trimester framework and an arbitrary viability line, which Casey perpetuated with an unworkable 'undue burden' test. Stare decisis does not compel adherence to these wrongly decided precedents due to the nature of their error, the poor quality of their reasoning, their unworkability, their disruptive effect on other areas of law, and the absence of concrete reliance interests. Abortion is fundamentally different from other rights recognized under the Due Process Clause—such as those involving contraception or marriage—because it uniquely involves the destruction of what Roe termed 'potential life.' Therefore, the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives, and state laws on the matter are to be judged under a rational-basis standard of review.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
I join the majority in holding there is no constitutional right to abortion. This is correct not only under current substantive due process analysis but also for a more fundamental reason: the doctrine of 'substantive due process' itself is an oxymoron that lacks any basis in the Constitution's text or history. The Due Process Clause guarantees only procedural rights, not substantive ones. Because any substantive due process decision is 'demonstrably erroneous,' the Court should, in future cases, reconsider and overrule all precedents based on this doctrine, including Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex intimacy), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage).
Concurring - Justice Kavanaugh
I join the majority in overruling Roe and Casey. The Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion; it neither legalizes nor outlaws it, leaving the matter to the democratic process in the states or Congress. Roe was egregiously wrong because it took sides on a contentious moral and policy issue that the Constitution does not grant the Court authority to decide. Stare decisis does not require upholding Roe and Casey because they were wrongly decided, have caused significant negative consequences, and Casey’s predictive judgment that it would end the national division has not been borne out. Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of other precedents like Griswold or Obergefell, as abortion is distinct, and this decision does not outlaw abortion nationwide but returns the issue to the people.
Concurring in the judgment - Chief Justice Roberts
I would take a more measured course. I agree that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded because it is arbitrary and unreasoned, and I would uphold Mississippi’s 15-week law on the grounds that it provides a 'reasonable opportunity' for a woman to choose. However, it is not necessary to overrule Roe and Casey in their entirety to decide this case. The majority violates the principle of judicial restraint by deciding more than is required by the facts. Discarding the viability rule is sufficient to resolve this case, and the Court should have left for another day the question of whether to eliminate the right to abortion altogether.
Dissenting - Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan
Yes, the Constitution protects a woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child, a right established for half a century under Roe and Casey. Today's decision discards a balance between a woman's liberty and the State's interest in potential life, allowing a State to force a woman to bring a pregnancy to term from the moment of fertilization. The majority's historical analysis is flawed; its insistence on the views of men in 1868 consigns women to second-class citizenship. This ruling undermines the Court's legitimacy by departing from stare decisis for no reason other than a change in the Court's composition. The majority's claim that this decision will not affect other rights like contraception and same-sex marriage is not credible, as the same historical reasoning could be used to undermine them. This decision curtails women's rights and their status as free and equal citizens.
Analysis:
This is a landmark decision that explicitly overturns nearly 50 years of precedent, eliminating the federal constitutional protection for abortion. By returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states, the ruling will create a patchwork of laws across the country, with many states expected to ban or severely restrict the procedure. The decision will trigger significant legal and political battles at the state level over the scope of abortion access and will likely lead to litigation concerning interstate travel, medication abortion, and the definition of life. It fundamentally alters the landscape of reproductive rights and constitutional law in the United States.
