--- title: "Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization" description: "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overruled. The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Abortion regulations are henceforth reviewed under rational-basis review." type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "2022-06-24" citation: "597 U.S. 215 (2022)" docket: "19-1392" status: "Controlling law" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/dobbs-v-jackson-2022.html" --- # Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization _Full caption: Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization et al._ **Citation:** 597 U.S. 215 (2022) · **Docket No.** 19-1392 **Status:** Controlling law | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | December 1, 2021 | | Decided | June 24, 2022 | | Vote | 6-3 to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban; 5-4 to overrule Roe and Casey | | Majority author | Alito, J. | | Joined by | Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JJ. (5-Justice majority to overrule Roe/Casey); Roberts, C.J. concurred in the judgment only to uphold the Mississippi law without overruling | ## Question presented Whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortion are unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey; and whether Roe and Casey should be overruled. ## Holding The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overruled. The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Abortion regulations are henceforth reviewed under rational-basis review. ## Reasoning Applying the Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) test for substantive due process rights, Justice Alito concluded that abortion is not 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' — noting that three-quarters of states criminalized abortion at all stages when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Court expressly rejected the sex-discrimination Equal Protection theory under Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) and Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993). The Court did NOT address whether the unborn are 'persons' under the Fourteenth Amendment — a question central to abolitionist jurisprudence. ## Opinions ### Majority — Alito, J. _Joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, JJ. (5-Justice majority to overrule Roe/Casey); Roberts, C.J. concurred in the judgment only to uphold the Mississippi law without overruling_ The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overruled. The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. Abortion regulations are henceforth reviewed under rational-basis review. ### Concurrence — Thomas, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Concurred to argue that the Court should reconsider all substantive due process precedents including Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex intimacy), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage). No other Justice joined this position. ### Concurrence — Kavanaugh, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Emphasized the Constitution's neutrality on abortion: 'the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice.' Signaled willingness to enforce constitutional rights of women to interstate travel for abortion. ### Concurrence — Roberts, C.J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Would have upheld the Mississippi 15-week ban on the narrower ground that viability was not essential to Roe/Casey, without overruling those precedents. ### Dissent — Joint dissent by Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ. _Not joined by any other justice_ Excoriated the majority for abandoning stare decisis and stripping women of a fundamental right relied upon for nearly 50 years. Warned that the reasoning threatens contraception, same-sex intimacy, and marriage equality. ## Key quotes > "We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." > — Alito, J. (majority) · slip op. at 5 > "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives." > — Alito, J. (majority) · slip op. at 69 > "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." > — Alito, J. (majority) · slip op. at 1 (holding) > "On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process." > — Kavanaugh, J. (concurring) · slip op. at 2 (Kavanaugh concurrence) > "With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection — we dissent." > — Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ. (joint dissent) · dissent slip op. at 60 > "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell." > — Thomas, J. (concurring) · Thomas concurrence slip op. at 3 ## Practical effect Within hours, trigger laws in approximately thirteen states took effect. By 2026, roughly sixteen states enforce broad bans and thirteen state ballot measures have enshrined abortion rights. Rational-basis review effectively removes federal constitutional scrutiny of state abortion regulations. ## Perspectives The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case. ### Abolitionist framing Abolitionists celebrated the overruling of Roe but sharply criticize Dobbs for (a) not recognizing prenatal personhood under the Fourteenth Amendment, (b) explicitly framing the question as returning to 'the people and their elected representatives' rather than establishing constitutional protection for the unborn, and (c) Kavanaugh's 'neutrality' framing. Bradley Pierce's amicus brief on behalf of 21 abolitionist organizations and 20 state legislators had urged the Court to recognize fetal personhood; the Court declined. Abolitionists cite Craddock (Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 2017) and Finnis/George (Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 2022) arguing the Equal Protection question remains open. ### Mainstream pro-life framing NRLC, SBA Pro-Life America, AUL, and USCCB celebrated Dobbs as the greatest pro-life victory in 50 years. These groups broadly accept the return-to-states framing and pursued state-level legislation with exceptions (rape, incest, life of mother), which abolitionists reject as compromise. Seventy-plus mainstream pro-life groups signed the May 12, 2022 letter opposing criminalization of women. ### Pro-choice framing Reproductive rights advocates called Dobbs the first Supreme Court decision to withdraw a previously recognized fundamental right. Focused on ballot initiatives (13 of 17 measures won 2022-2024), state constitutional amendments, and Congressional efforts to codify Roe. ## Significance The most consequential abortion ruling since Roe; overruled 49 years of precedent and reshaped the entire legal landscape. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 10 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 10 | | Practical impact on access | 10 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 10 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 10 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf) - [law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392) ### Secondary sources - [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jacks…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women's_Health_Organization) - [constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14…](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt14-S1-6-4-3/ALDE_00013278/) - [congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10768](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10768) ## Related cases **Cites earlier cases:** - [Roe v. Wade (1973)](roe-v-wade-1973.md) - [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md) - Washington v. Glucksberg (1997) - Geduldig v. Aiello (1974) - Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993) **Cited by later cases:** - [FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024)](fda-v-alliance-hippocratic-medicine-2024.md) - [Moyle v. United States (2024)](moyle-v-united-states-2024.md) ## Notes Draft opinion leaked to Politico on May 2, 2022 — first known leak of a full Supreme Court opinion. Dobbs did NOT establish fetal personhood, did NOT ban abortion nationally, and did NOT address the Craddock/Finnis/George Equal Protection argument for fetal rights — all facts crucial for abolitionist audiences to understand.