{"schema":"abhortion.org/case.v1/v1","id":"stenberg-v-carhart-2000","type":"case","case_name_short":"Stenberg v. Carhart","case_name_full":"Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska v. Carhart","citation":"530 U.S. 914 (2000)","docket_number":"99-830","status":"Effectively overruled by Gonzales v. Carhart","court":"U.S. Supreme Court","date_argued":"2000-04-25","date_decided":"2000-06-28","vote":"5-4","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.","reasoning_summary":"Justice Breyer applied Casey's undue burden test, finding both defects (no health exception, over-broad procedural definition) constitutionally fatal.","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).","opinions":[{"role":"majority","author":"Breyer, J.","joined_by":"Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ.","summary":"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."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Stevens, J.","joined_by":"Ginsburg, J.","summary":"Emphasized the importance of a health exception."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"O'Connor, J.","summary":"Emphasized the narrowness of the Court's holding."},{"role":"concurrence","author":"Ginsburg, J.","joined_by":"Stevens, J.","summary":"Emphasized the medical evidence supporting intact D&E."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Rehnquist, C.J.","summary":"Would have upheld the law."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Scalia, J.","summary":"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."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Kennedy, J.","joined_by":"Rehnquist, C.J.","summary":"Argued the Nebraska law was consistent with Casey."},{"role":"dissent","author":"Thomas, J.","joined_by":"Rehnquist, C.J.; Scalia, J.","summary":"Argued Roe and Casey should be overruled."}],"key_quotes":[{"quote":"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.","speaker":"Scalia, J. (dissenting)","location":"530 U.S. at 953"}],"perspectives":{"abolitionist":"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_prolife":"NRLC, SBA, USCCB all sharply criticized the ruling and used it to mobilize support for the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.","prochoice":"Advocates viewed the ruling as necessary protection for a rare but sometimes medically indicated late-term procedure."},"significance":{"overall":4,"legal_precedential_weight":5,"practical_impact_on_access":4,"movement_relevance_abolitionist":6,"enduring_relevance_2026":2,"rationale":"Superseded by Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) as a matter of doctrine; Scalia's dissent remains rhetorically important."},"sources":{"primary":[{"name":"supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/914","href":"https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/914/"},{"name":"law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD1.html","href":"https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD1.html"}]},"related_cases":{"cites_earlier":["Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)"],"cited_by_later":["Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)","Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)"]},"notes":"Scalia's Dred Scott comparison in this dissent is the origin of much modern movement rhetoric.","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"}}