--- title: "Stenberg v. Carhart" description: "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." type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "2000-06-28" citation: "530 U.S. 914 (2000)" docket: "99-830" status: "Effectively overruled by Gonzales v. Carhart" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/stenberg-v-carhart-2000.html" --- # Stenberg v. Carhart _Full caption: Stenberg, Attorney General of Nebraska v. Carhart_ **Citation:** 530 U.S. 914 (2000) · **Docket No.** 99-830 **Status:** Effectively overruled by Gonzales v. Carhart | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | April 25, 2000 | | Decided | June 28, 2000 | | Vote | 5-4 | | Majority author | Breyer, J. | | Joined by | Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, JJ. | ## 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 Justice Breyer applied Casey's undue burden test, finding both defects (no health exception, over-broad procedural definition) constitutionally fatal. ## Opinions ### Majority — Breyer, J. _Joined by 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. _Joined by 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. _Joined by 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. _Joined by Rehnquist, C.J._ Argued the Nebraska law was consistent with Casey. ### Dissent — Thomas, J. _Joined by Rehnquist, C.J.; Scalia, J._ Argued Roe and Casey should be overruled. ## Key quotes > "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 ## 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). ## 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. ## Significance Superseded by Gonzales v. Carhart (2007) as a matter of doctrine; Scalia's dissent remains rhetorically important. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 4 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 5 | | Practical impact on access | 4 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 6 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 2 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/914](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/914/) - [law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD1.html](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-830.ZD1.html) ## Related cases **Cites earlier cases:** - [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md) **Cited by later cases:** - [Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)](gonzales-v-carhart-2007.md) - [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)](dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md) ## Notes Scalia's Dred Scott comparison in this dissent is the origin of much modern movement rhetoric.