---
title: "Gonzales v. Carhart"
description: "The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is facially constitutional. Its language is distinguishable from the Nebraska law struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). Facial challenges are inappropriate; as-applied challenges may still be available."
type: "case"
court: "U.S. Supreme Court"
decided: "2007-04-18"
citation: "550 U.S. 124 (2007)"
docket: "05-380"
status: "Good law"
source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/gonzales-v-carhart-2007.html"
---

# Gonzales v. Carhart

_Full caption: Gonzales, Attorney General v. Carhart et al._

**Citation:** 550 U.S. 124 (2007) · **Docket No.** 05-380

**Status:** Good law

| Field | Value |
| --- | --- |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Argued | November 8, 2006 |
| Decided | April 18, 2007 |
| Vote | 5-4 |
| Majority author | Kennedy, J. |
| Joined by | Roberts, C.J.; Scalia, Thomas, Alito, JJ. |

## Question presented

Whether the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531, is unconstitutional on its face because it lacks a health-of-the-mother exception.

## 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). Facial challenges are inappropriate; as-applied challenges may still be available.

## Reasoning

Justice Kennedy distinguished the federal law from Stenberg on textual grounds — the federal Act was more specific about which procedure it banned (intact D&E). He introduced a 'regret rationale': the state has a legitimate interest in protecting women who might come to regret an abortion.

## Opinions

### Majority — Kennedy, J.

_Joined by Roberts, C.J.; Scalia, Thomas, Alito, JJ._

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act is facially constitutional. Its language is distinguishable from the Nebraska law struck down in Stenberg v. Carhart (2000). Facial challenges are inappropriate; as-applied challenges may still be available.

### Concurrence — Thomas, J.

_Joined by Scalia, J._

Reiterated that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided but noted that argument was not pressed.

### Dissent — Ginsburg, J.

_Joined by Stevens, Souter, Breyer, JJ._

Fiercely criticized the majority's 'regret rationale' and the reversal of Stenberg v. Carhart. Argued the ruling was a departure from precedent and reflected 'ancient notions about women's place in the family.'

## Key quotes

> "While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow."
> — Kennedy, J. (majority) · slip op. at 28-29

> "Today's decision is alarming. It refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously. It tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found necessary and proper in certain cases by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). It blurs the line, firmly drawn in Casey, between previability and postviability abortions. And, for the first time since Roe, the Court blesses a prohibition with no exception safeguarding a woman's health."
> — Ginsburg, J. (dissenting) · dissent at 1

> "The Court invokes an antiabortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence."
> — Ginsburg, J. (dissenting) · dissent at 26

## Practical effect

The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act took full effect. First-time upholding of a federal restriction on abortion since Roe. Signaled a shift in the Court's abortion jurisprudence.

## Perspectives

The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case.

### Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists welcomed the upholding of the federal ban but criticized the ruling as a compromise — the ban only prohibited one procedure (intact D&E, also called 'partial-birth abortion') and did not protect all unborn life.

### Mainstream pro-life framing

Widely celebrated as the first major pro-life victory at the Supreme Court since Roe. NRLC, SBA, USCCB all praised the decision.

### Pro-choice framing

Advocates decried the ruling as a departure from Casey and Stenberg, criticized the 'regret rationale' as paternalistic, and warned it opened the door to broader restrictions.

## Significance

First major post-Casey narrowing of abortion rights and first upholding of a federal restriction; signaled the Court's shift.

| Measure | Score |
| --- | --- |
| Overall significance | 5 / 10 |
| Legal precedential weight | 7 |
| Practical impact on access | 5 |
| Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 4 |
| Enduring relevance, 2026 | 3 |

## Sources

### Primary sources

- [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/550/124/)

### Secondary sources

- [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Carhart)

## Related cases

**Cites earlier cases:**

- [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md)
- [Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)](stenberg-v-carhart-2000.md)

**Cited by later cases:**

- [Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)](whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.md)
- [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)](dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md)

## Notes

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (18 U.S.C. § 1531) remains in effect.