Abhortion for the abolition of abortion
The Index Print
Cases/ U.S. Supreme Court/ 2000

Stenberg v. Carhart

530 U.S. 914 (2000) · Docket No. 99-830

Full caption: Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska v. Carhart

Effectively overruled by Gonzales v. Carhart

Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Argued
April 25, 2000
Decided
June 28, 2000
Majority author
Breyer, J.
Joined by
Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ.
Vote
5-4
Case No. 14 of 28 All cases, indexed

Question presented

Whether Nebraska's law prohibiting 'partial-birth abortion' (defined broadly) is unconstitutional because it (a) lacks a health-of-the-mother exception and (b) is broad enough to prohibit standard D&E procedures used for most second-trimester abortions.

Holding

The Nebraska law is unconstitutional. It lacks a health exception required by Casey, and its broad definition of 'partial-birth abortion' could be read to cover the standard D&E procedure used for the majority of second-trimester abortions.

Key reasoning

Justice Breyer applied Casey's undue burden test, finding both defects (no health exception, over-broad procedural definition) constitutionally fatal.

§ 1 Reasoning

Justice Breyer applied Casey's undue burden test, finding both defects (no health exception, over-broad procedural definition) constitutionally fatal.

§ 2 Opinions

Majority

Breyer, J.

Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ.

The Nebraska law is unconstitutional. It lacks a health exception required by Casey, and its broad definition of 'partial-birth abortion' could be read to cover the standard D&E procedure used for the majority of second-trimester abortions.

Concurrence

Stevens, J.

Ginsburg, J.

Emphasized the importance of a health exception.

Concurrence

O'Connor, J.

Not joined by any other justice

Emphasized the narrowness of the Court's holding.

Concurrence

Ginsburg, J.

Stevens, J.

Emphasized the medical evidence supporting intact D&E.

Dissent

Rehnquist, C.J.

Not joined by any other justice

Would have upheld the law.

Dissent

Scalia, J.

Not joined by any other justice

Compared Stenberg to Korematsu and Dred Scott — declared his 'optimism' that the decision would be assigned its 'rightful place' among the Court's worst rulings.

Dissent

Kennedy, J.

Rehnquist, C.J.

Argued the Nebraska law was consistent with Casey.

Dissent

Thomas, J.

Rehnquist, C.J.; Scalia, J.

Argued Roe and Casey should be overruled.

“I am optimistic enough to believe that, one day, Stenberg v. Carhart will be assigned its rightful place in the history of this Court's jurisprudence beside Korematsu and Dred Scott. The method of killing a human child — one cannot even accurately say an entirely unborn human child — proscribed by this statute is so horrible that the most clinical description of it evokes a shudder of revulsion.” Scalia, J. (dissenting) · 530 U.S. at 953

§ 3 Practical effect

Nebraska's law and similar state laws in approximately 30 other states were struck down. Motivated Congress to pass the more precisely worded federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, upheld in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007).

§ 4 Perspectives

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

Abolitionist framing

Abolitionists cite Scalia's Stenberg-Dred Scott comparison as vindication of their central rhetorical parallel: Roe/Casey/Stenberg all treated an entire class of humans as constitutionally unprotected. Note: this parallel is morally strong but doctrinally imperfect — see the notes on Dred Scott framing.

Mainstream pro-life framing

NRLC, SBA, USCCB all sharply criticized the ruling and used it to mobilize support for the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Pro-choice framing

Advocates viewed the ruling as necessary protection for a rare but sometimes medically indicated late-term procedure.

§ 5 Significance

4/ 10

Superseded by Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) as a matter of doctrine; Scalia's dissent remains rhetorically important.

Legal precedential weight5
Practical impact on access4
Movement relevance (abolitionist)6
Enduring relevance, 20262

§ 6 Sources

Secondary sources

  • None recorded.

Cites earlier cases

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

Cited by later cases

Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)
Editorial note Scalia's Dred Scott comparison in this dissent is the origin of much modern movement rhetoric.