--- title: "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt" description: "Both provisions are unconstitutional because they place a 'substantial obstacle' in the path of women seeking abortion without providing significant health benefits." type: "case" court: "U.S. Supreme Court" decided: "2016-06-27" citation: "579 U.S. 582 (2016)" docket: "15-274" status: "Superseded by Dobbs" source_url: "https://www.abhortion.org/cases/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-2016.html" --- # Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt _Full caption: Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, Commissioner, Texas Department of State Health Services_ **Citation:** 579 U.S. 582 (2016) · **Docket No.** 15-274 **Status:** Superseded by Dobbs | Field | Value | | --- | --- | | Court | U.S. Supreme Court | | Argued | March 2, 2016 | | Decided | June 27, 2016 | | Vote | 5-3 (Justice Scalia had died February 13, 2016) | | Majority author | Breyer, J. | | Joined by | Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ. | ## Question presented Whether Texas House Bill 2 provisions — requiring (1) abortion providers to hold admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and (2) abortion facilities to meet ambulatory surgical center (ASC) standards — impose an undue burden on the right to abortion. ## Holding Both provisions are unconstitutional because they place a 'substantial obstacle' in the path of women seeking abortion without providing significant health benefits. ## Reasoning Justice Breyer refined Casey's undue burden test to require courts to independently balance the burdens imposed by a law against the medical benefits claimed. The Court found that H.B. 2 had caused approximately half of Texas's abortion clinics to close (from about 40 to 20) with no measurable improvement in patient safety. ## Opinions ### Majority — Breyer, J. _Joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, JJ._ Both provisions are unconstitutional because they place a 'substantial obstacle' in the path of women seeking abortion without providing significant health benefits. ### Concurrence — Ginsburg, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Emphasized that abortion is a safe procedure and that TRAP laws serve no medical purpose. ### Dissent — Thomas, J. _Not joined by any other justice_ Would reject the entire Casey framework. ### Dissent — Alito, J. _Joined by Roberts, C.J.; Thomas, J._ Argued the majority misapplied the undue burden test and improperly weighed evidence. ## Key quotes > "We conclude that neither of these provisions confers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes. Each places a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the Federal Constitution." > — Breyer, J. (majority) · slip op. at 1-2 > "The record evidence indicates that the admitting-privileges requirement placed a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman's choice, vastly increased the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women's health." > — Breyer, J. (majority) · slip op. at 25 ## Practical effect TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws in numerous states were invalidated or vulnerable to challenge. The benefits-and-burdens balancing test was later narrowed by Roberts's concurrence in June Medical Services (2020) and abandoned by Dobbs (2022). ## Perspectives The summaries below are descriptive, not evaluative — an attempt to represent fairly how each camp typically frames this case. ### Abolitionist framing Abolitionists criticize Hellerstedt as an example of judicial interference with democratic pro-life legislation. Since Dobbs, the case has diminished relevance. ### Mainstream pro-life framing Mainstream pro-life groups were sharply critical, arguing the Court had substituted its medical judgment for the legislature's. The 'benefits-burdens' test was seen as unworkable and hostile to any pro-life regulation. ### Pro-choice framing Celebrated as a major victory that restored teeth to Casey's undue burden test and pushed back against TRAP laws. ## Significance Major pre-Dobbs precedent superseded by Dobbs. Some analytical framework remains relevant for challenges to state constitutional provisions. | Measure | Score | | --- | --- | | Overall significance | 5 / 10 | | Legal precedential weight | 6 | | Practical impact on access | 7 | | Movement relevance (abolitionist) | 3 | | Enduring relevance, 2026 | 2 | ## Sources ### Primary sources - [supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-274](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-274/) ### Secondary sources - [theusconstitution.org/litigation/whole-wo…](https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/whole-womans-health-v-hellerstedt-u-s-sup-ct/) ## Related cases **Cites earlier cases:** - [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)](planned-parenthood-v-casey-1992.md) **Cited by later cases:** - [June Medical Services v. Russo (2020)](june-medical-services-v-russo-2020.md) - [Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)](dobbs-v-jackson-2022.md) ## Notes The absence of a ninth Justice (post-Scalia death, pre-Gorsuch confirmation) shaped the outcome.