Document Type
Brief
Case Name
Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
Publication Date
7-29-2021
Abstract
No. 19-1392
Thomas E. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
From the Introduction and Summary of the Argument
By the narrowest of margins, this Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), refused to overrule Roe—not because it thought Roe was correct, but because it thought Roe must endure as a matter of stare decisis. But 30 years later it has become clear that Casey, too, was egregiously wrong, for each one of the stare decisis factors cited by Casey itself supports Roe’s repudiation. While many Americans may hope and expect that the political victory Roe declared for their side of the abortion debate will remain unquestioned, this expectancy plainly does not constitute the type of detrimental reliance to which this Court has given weight in the stare decisis calculus. Judicial developments and scientific progress have undermined Roe as a matter of fact and law. And Roe’s doctrinal standards, as reframed by Casey, have proven unworkable.
Recommended Citation
Garnett, Richard W.; Cooper, Charles J.; Patterson, Peter A.; Barnes, Brian W.; and Ohlendorf, John D., "Brief of Amicus Curiae Ethics and Public Policy Center in Support of Petitioners and Reversal" (2021). Court Briefs. 81.
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/sct_briefs/81
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
Comments
The Ethics and Public Policy Center is a nonprofit research institution dedicated to defending American ideals and to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy. It has an intense interest in this case because Roe’s declaration of a constitutional right to an abortion—and Casey’s reaffirmation of that decision—have inflicted continuing severe damage on our national culture, our political institutions, and our understanding of the judicial role.