{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992","type":"case","case_name_short":"Planned Parenthood v. Casey","case_name_full":"Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania et al. v. Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania et al.","citation":"505 U.S. 833 (1992)","docket_number":"91-744, 91-902","status":"Overruled by Dobbs","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"1992-04-22","date_decided":"1992-06-29","vote":"5-4 (fractured; joint plurality opinion controlling on core issues)","question_presented":"Whether Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act provisions — including informed consent, 24-hour waiting period, parental consent, spousal notification, and reporting requirements — are unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade; whether Roe should be overruled.","holding":"Roe's 'essential holding' is reaffirmed on stare decisis grounds — women retain the right to pre-viability abortion. The trimester framework is jettisoned. States may regulate abortion throughout pregnancy so long as they do not impose an 'undue burden' — defined as a 'substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.' Under this standard, the spousal-notification requirement was struck down; the other provisions were upheld.","reasoning_summary":"The joint opinion of O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter emphasized stare decisis while replacing Roe's rigid trimester framework with the 'undue burden' standard. The Court's most famous passage articulated a broad theory of personal liberty at 'the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.'","practical_effect":"Roe was preserved on stare decisis but weakened doctrinally. States gained substantial authority to regulate abortion via informed consent, waiting periods, parental involvement, and reporting requirements. Undue burden framework controlled until Dobbs (2022).","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ. (joint plurality opinion)","joined_by":"Joined in part by Blackmun and Stevens, JJ., to form majorities on various issues","summary":"Roe's 'essential holding' is reaffirmed on stare decisis grounds — women retain the right to pre-viability abortion. The trimester framework is jettisoned. States may regulate abortion throughout pregnancy so long as they do not impose an 'undue burden' — defined as a 'substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.' Under this standard, the spousal-notification requirement was struck down; the other provisions were upheld."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Stevens, J.","summary":"Would have retained more of Roe's trimester framework."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Blackmun, J.","summary":"Emotionally reflected on the future of abortion rights: 'I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on this Court forever.'"},{"role":"dissent","author":"Rehnquist, C.J.","joined_by":"White, Scalia, Thomas, JJ.","summary":"Would have overruled Roe. Called the plurality's stare decisis analysis 'a sort of judicial Potemkin Village.'"},{"role":"dissent","author":"Scalia, J.","joined_by":"Rehnquist, C.J.; White, Thomas, JJ.","summary":"Sharply attacked the 'undue burden' standard as 'as doubtful in application as it is unprincipled in origin, hopelessly unworkable in practice, ultimately standardless.' Accused the plurality of installing an 'Imperial Judiciary.'"}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"The essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.","speaker":"Joint opinion (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ.)","location":"505 U.S. at 846"},{"quote":"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.","speaker":"Joint opinion (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ.)","location":"505 U.S. at 851"},{"quote":"A finding of an undue burden is a shorthand for the conclusion that a state regulation has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.","speaker":"Joint opinion","location":"505 U.S. at 877"},{"quote":"Roe continues to exist, but only in the way a storefront on a western movie set exists: a mere facade to give the illusion of reality.","speaker":"Rehnquist, C.J. (dissenting)","location":"505 U.S. at 954"},{"quote":"The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life-tenured judges — leading a Volk who will be 'tested by following,' and whose very 'belief in themselves' is mystically bound up in their 'understanding' of a Court that 'speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals' — with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.","speaker":"Scalia, J. (dissenting)","location":"505 U.S. at 996"},{"quote":"I am 83 years old. I cannot remain on this Court forever, and when I do step down, the confirmation process for my successor may focus on the issue before us today.","speaker":"Blackmun, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part)","location":"505 U.S. at 943"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"Abolitionists reject Casey as a compromise decision that preserved a fundamentally wrong ruling (Roe) while creating the 'undue burden' framework that channeled the pro-life movement into decades of incremental regulation. Casey's 'mystery passage' is often cited as exemplifying moral relativism.","mainstream_prolife":"Mainstream pro-life groups viewed Casey as a mixed bag — Roe was upheld, but the undue burden test gave states more room to regulate. Groups like AUL built the incrementalist strategy on Casey's framework.","prochoice":"Advocates viewed Casey as preserving Roe under stare decisis but warned that the undue burden test would enable creeping restrictions."},"significance":{"overall":8,"legal_precedential_weight":9,"practical_impact_on_access":8,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":8,"enduring_relevance_2026":6,"rationale":"Controlling abortion doctrine for 30 years (1992-2022) until Dobbs overruled it. Enabled the incrementalist strategy."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833","href":"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/"},{"name":"law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ft…","href":"http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/casey.html"}],"secondary":[{"name":"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey","href":"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Roe v. Wade (1973)","Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)"],"cited_by_later":["Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)","Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)","Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016)","June Medical Services v. Russo (2020)","Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)"]},"notes":"The '3-Justice joint opinion' format was unusual and reflected the Court's deep division. The 'mystery of human life' passage was written by Justice Kennedy.","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"}}