{"schema":"abhortion.org/index.case/v1","type":"index","collection":"case","title":"Cases","description":"Key abortion-related U.S. court cases, in chronological order.","count":28,"source":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases.html","items":[{"id":"dred-scott-v-sandford-1857","no":1,"case_name_short":"Dred Scott v. Sandford","citation":"60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1857-03-06","status":"Overruled by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments","holding":"Persons of African descent — whether enslaved or free — could never be 'citizens' under Article III and thus had no standing to sue in federal court.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dred-scott-v-sandford-1857.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dred-scott-v-sandford-1857.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dred-scott-v-sandford-1857.json"}},{"id":"griswold-v-connecticut-1965","no":2,"case_name_short":"Griswold v. Connecticut","citation":"381 U.S. 479 (1965)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1965-06-07","status":"Good law","holding":"The Connecticut law is unconstitutional. Various guarantees of the Bill of Rights create 'zones of privacy' — 'penumbras' — that include marital privacy.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.json"}},{"id":"united-states-v-vuitch-1971","no":3,"case_name_short":"United States v. Vuitch","citation":"402 U.S. 62 (1971)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1971-04-21","status":"Historical predecessor","holding":"The D.C. statute is not unconstitutionally vague. 'Health' includes psychological as well as physical well-being. The prosecution bears the burden of proving abortion was not medically necessary.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/united-states-v-vuitch-1971.json"}},{"id":"eisenstadt-v-baird-1972","no":4,"case_name_short":"Eisenstadt v. Baird","citation":"405 U.S. 438 (1972)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1972-03-22","status":"Good law","holding":"The Massachusetts law is unconstitutional. The right to privacy recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) extends to individuals — married or unmarried.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/eisenstadt-v-baird-1972.json"}},{"id":"doe-v-bolton-1973","no":5,"case_name_short":"Doe v. Bolton","citation":"410 U.S. 179 (1973)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1973-01-22","status":"Overruled by Dobbs","holding":"Georgia's procedural requirements are unconstitutional.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/doe-v-bolton-1973.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/doe-v-bolton-1973.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/doe-v-bolton-1973.json"}},{"id":"roe-v-wade-1973","no":6,"case_name_short":"Roe v. Wade","citation":"410 U.S. 113 (1973)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1973-01-22","status":"Overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization","holding":"The right of privacy — grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause (or alternatively the Ninth Amendment) — encompasses a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/roe-v-wade-1973.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/roe-v-wade-1973.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/roe-v-wade-1973.json"}},{"id":"bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979","no":7,"case_name_short":"Bellotti v. Baird (II)","citation":"443 U.S. 622 (1979)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1979-07-02","status":"Good law on judicial bypass framework","holding":"The Massachusetts law is unconstitutional as construed by the state supreme court to give parents or judges an absolute veto.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/bellotti-v-baird-ii-1979.json"}},{"id":"harris-v-mcrae-1980","no":8,"case_name_short":"Harris v. McRae","citation":"448 U.S. 297 (1980)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1980-06-30","status":"Good law","holding":"The Hyde Amendment is constitutional. States participating in Medicaid are not required to fund medically necessary abortions for which federal reimbursement is unavailable.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/harris-v-mcrae-1980.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/harris-v-mcrae-1980.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/harris-v-mcrae-1980.json"}},{"id":"akron-v-akron-center-1983","no":9,"case_name_short":"City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health","citation":"462 U.S. 416 (1983)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1983-06-15","status":"Effectively overruled by Casey","holding":"All five provisions are unconstitutional. Hospital requirement for second-trimester abortions imposes unreasonable costs. Parental consent lacks adequate judicial bypass.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/akron-v-akron-center-1983.json"}},{"id":"thornburgh-v-acog-1986","no":10,"case_name_short":"Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists","citation":"476 U.S. 747 (1986)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1986-06-11","status":"Superseded","holding":"The challenged Pennsylvania provisions are unconstitutional as inconsistent with Roe.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/thornburgh-v-acog-1986.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/thornburgh-v-acog-1986.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/thornburgh-v-acog-1986.json"}},{"id":"webster-v-reproductive-health-services-1989","no":11,"case_name_short":"Webster v. Reproductive Health Services","citation":"492 U.S. 490 (1989)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1989-07-03","status":"Superseded by later abortion cases","holding":"The Missouri law is largely constitutional. The preamble poses no constitutional problem as it does not by itself regulate abortion.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/webster-v-reproductive-health-services-1989.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/webster-v-reproductive-health-services-1989.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/webster-v-reproductive-health-services-1989.json"}},{"id":"rust-v-sullivan-1991","no":12,"case_name_short":"Rust v. Sullivan","citation":"500 U.S. 173 (1991)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1991-05-23","status":"Good law on spending/speech doctrine","holding":"The regulations are a permissible construction of the Public Health Service Act and do not violate the First or Fifth Amendments.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/rust-v-sullivan-1991.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/rust-v-sullivan-1991.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/rust-v-sullivan-1991.json"}},{"id":"planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992","no":13,"case_name_short":"Planned Parenthood v. Casey","citation":"505 U.S. 833 (1992)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"1992-06-29","status":"Overruled by Dobbs","holding":"Roe's 'essential holding' is reaffirmed on stare decisis grounds — women retain the right to pre-viability abortion. The trimester framework is jettisoned.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.json"}},{"id":"stenberg-v-carhart-2000","no":14,"case_name_short":"Stenberg v. Carhart","citation":"530 U.S. 914 (2000)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2000-06-28","status":"Effectively overruled by Gonzales v. Carhart","holding":"The Nebraska law is unconstitutional.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/stenberg-v-carhart-2000.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/stenberg-v-carhart-2000.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/stenberg-v-carhart-2000.json"}},{"id":"hill-v-colorado-2000","no":15,"case_name_short":"Hill v. Colorado","citation":"530 U.S. 703 (2000)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2000-06-28","status":"Doubtful","holding":"The Colorado statute is constitutional. It is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation that leaves open ample alternative channels of communication.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/hill-v-colorado-2000.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/hill-v-colorado-2000.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/hill-v-colorado-2000.json"}},{"id":"ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-2006","no":16,"case_name_short":"Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England","citation":"546 U.S. 320 (2006)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2006-01-18","status":"Good law on remedial question","holding":"Invalidating a statute entirely is not always necessary or justified when only some applications would be unconstitutional. Lower courts may render narrower declaratory and injunctive relief.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-2006.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-2006.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-2006.json"}},{"id":"gonzales-v-carhart-2007","no":17,"case_name_short":"Gonzales v. Carhart","citation":"550 U.S. 124 (2007)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2007-04-18","status":"Good law","holding":"The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is facially constitutional. Its language is distinguishable from the Nebraska law struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000).","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/gonzales-v-carhart-2007.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/gonzales-v-carhart-2007.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/gonzales-v-carhart-2007.json"}},{"id":"mccullen-v-coakley-2014","no":18,"case_name_short":"McCullen v. Coakley","citation":"573 U.S. 464 (2014)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2014-06-26","status":"Good law","holding":"The buffer zone violates the First Amendment because it burdens substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the state's asserted interests.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/mccullen-v-coakley-2014.json"}},{"id":"whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016","no":19,"case_name_short":"Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt","citation":"579 U.S. 582 (2016)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2016-06-27","status":"Superseded by Dobbs","holding":"Both provisions are unconstitutional because they place a 'substantial obstacle' in the path of women seeking abortion without providing significant health benefits.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.json"}},{"id":"nifla-v-becerra-2018","no":20,"case_name_short":"NIFLA v. Becerra","citation":"585 U.S. 755 (2018)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2018-06-26","status":"Good law","holding":"The FACT Act likely violates the First Amendment.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/nifla-v-becerra-2018.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/nifla-v-becerra-2018.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/nifla-v-becerra-2018.json"}},{"id":"box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019","no":21,"case_name_short":"Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky","citation":"587 U.S. ___, 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2019-05-28","status":"Good law","holding":"(1) Indiana's fetal remains disposal law is constitutional under rational-basis review.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/box-v-planned-parenthood-indiana-2019.json"}},{"id":"june-medical-services-v-russo-2020","no":22,"case_name_short":"June Medical Services v. Russo","citation":"591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2020-06-29","status":"Superseded by Dobbs","holding":"The Louisiana admitting-privileges law is unconstitutional. Because the law was substantively identical to the Texas law struck down in Whole Woman's Health v.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/june-medical-services-v-russo-2020.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/june-medical-services-v-russo-2020.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/june-medical-services-v-russo-2020.json"}},{"id":"whole-womans-health-v-jackson-2021","no":23,"case_name_short":"Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson","citation":"595 U.S. 30 (2021)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2021-12-10","status":"Good law on procedural questions","holding":"Abortion providers may pursue a pre-enforcement challenge against state medical licensing officials (Texas Medical Board, Board of Nursing, Board of Pharmacy, and Health and Human Services…","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-jackson-2021.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-jackson-2021.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-jackson-2021.json"}},{"id":"dobbs-v-jackson-2022","no":24,"case_name_short":"Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization","citation":"597 U.S. 215 (2022)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2022-06-24","status":"Controlling law","holding":"The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overruled.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-2022.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-2022.json"}},{"id":"lepage-v-center-reproductive-medicine-2024","no":25,"case_name_short":"LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine","citation":"Ala. ___ (2024)","court":"Alabama Supreme Court","date_decided":"2024-02-16","status":"Formally in force but practically superseded by Alabama SB 159","holding":"Alabama's Wrongful Death of a Minor Act applies to all 'unborn children' regardless of location — including embryos stored outside a biological uterus.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/lepage-v-center-reproductive-medicine-2024.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/lepage-v-center-reproductive-medicine-2024.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/lepage-v-center-reproductive-medicine-2024.json"}},{"id":"fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024","no":26,"case_name_short":"FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine","citation":"602 U.S. 367 (2024)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2024-06-13","status":"Good law on standing","holding":"The plaintiff physicians and medical associations lack Article III standing. The Court did not reach the merits of whether the FDA's actions were lawful.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.json"}},{"id":"moyle-v-united-states-2024","no":27,"case_name_short":"Moyle v. United States","citation":"603 U.S. 324 (2024)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_decided":"2024-06-27","status":"Writs dismissed as improvidently granted","holding":"The Court dismissed the writs of certiorari as improvidently granted and vacated its earlier stay, thereby reinstating the district court's preliminary injunction barring Idaho from enforcing its…","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/moyle-v-united-states-2024.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/moyle-v-united-states-2024.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/moyle-v-united-states-2024.json"}},{"id":"louisiana-v-fda-2026","no":28,"case_name_short":"Louisiana v. FDA","citation":"No. 23A___, 606 U.S. ___ (2026) (order granting stay)","court":"U.S. Supreme Court (order)","date_decided":"2026-05-14","status":"Order in force","holding":"The Supreme Court granted an emergency stay, preserving the status quo for mifepristone access via telehealth and pharmacy while litigation continues in the Fifth Circuit.","links":{"html":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/louisiana-v-fda-2026.html","markdown":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/louisiana-v-fda-2026.md","json":"https://www.abhortion.org/cases/louisiana-v-fda-2026.json"}}]}