Master U.S. Supreme Court decision overruling Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and returning abortion regulation to the states. with this comprehensive case brief.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is one of the most consequential constitutional decisions of the modern era. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, explicitly overruling Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). In doing so, the Court rejected the viability line and the undue burden test that had defined abortion jurisprudence for decades, and it returned primary regulatory authority over abortion to the states and their elected representatives.
For law students, Dobbs is a landmark not only because it transforms substantive due process doctrine and reproductive rights, but also because it showcases the Court's approach to constitutional interpretation, the role and limits of stare decisis, and the interplay between federal and state power. The majority's historical methodology, the concurrences' competing visions for substantive due process and federalism, and the dissent's emphasis on liberty and equality create a rich set of materials for understanding how the Supreme Court constructs and dismantles constitutional frameworks.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), Supreme Court of the United States; 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022).
In 2018, Mississippi enacted the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits physicians from performing abortions if the probable gestational age of the fetus is greater than 15 weeks, except in cases of medical emergency or severe fetal abnormality. The Act does not include exceptions for rape or incest. Jackson Women's Health Organization—the only licensed abortion provider in Mississippi—and one of its physicians sued Mississippi's state health officer, Thomas Dobbs, and other officials in federal court, seeking to enjoin the law as unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which barred states from prohibiting abortions prior to viability (generally around 23–24 weeks) and applied the undue burden standard to pre-viability regulations. The district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement of the Act, holding it unconstitutional because it banned abortions before viability. The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are unconstitutional. After certiorari was granted, Mississippi argued more broadly that Roe and Casey should be overruled. On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed, upholding the Mississippi law.
Does the Constitution confer a right to obtain an abortion such that states may not prohibit pre-viability abortions, and should Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey be overruled?
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Unenumerated rights protected by the Due Process Clause must be deeply rooted in the Nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey are overruled. The authority to regulate or prohibit abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives, and abortion regulations are reviewed under rational basis unless they implicate a separate, specific constitutional provision. Legitimate state interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, the protection of maternal health and safety, the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures, the integrity of the medical profession, and the mitigation of fetal pain.
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and overruled Roe and Casey. It upheld Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban and reversed the Fifth Circuit, remanding for further proceedings. After Dobbs, state abortion laws are evaluated under rational basis review unless another constitutional protection is implicated.
Text, history, and tradition. The majority, authored by Justice Alito, concluded that the Constitution's text does not mention abortion and that a claimed unenumerated right must be deeply rooted in history and tradition and implicit in ordered liberty. Surveying the common law and 19th-century American statutes, the Court found widespread criminalization of abortion by the late 1800s and no historical foundation for a right to elective abortion. The Court rejected the argument that abortion fits within broader precedents protecting decisional autonomy in areas such as contraception and marriage, emphasizing that abortion is unique because it involves the destruction of what the law has long recognized as prenatal human life. Rejection of viability and Casey's framework. The Court characterized Roe's viability line as arbitrary and unworkable, noting viability evolves with medical advances and lacks principled constitutional grounding. It criticized Casey's undue burden test as indeterminate and prone to judicial subjectivity. Applying the Glucksberg approach to substantive due process, the majority concluded abortion is not a fundamental right, and thus abortion regulations are subject to rational basis review. Under that deferential standard, Mississippi's asserted interests—protecting prenatal life, maternal health, medical ethics, and preventing particularly harmful procedures—easily satisfy constitutional scrutiny. Stare decisis. The majority deemed Roe and Casey 'egregiously wrong' and unsustainable. Evaluating traditional stare decisis factors, the Court found: (1) poor reasoning and lack of grounding in constitutional text and history; (2) unworkability of the viability rule and the undue burden standard; (3) inconsistency with other areas of law; (4) limited reliance interests, given that abortion involves moral and policy judgments more appropriately resolved democratically; and (5) changes in factual premises did not justify maintaining the precedents. The Court thus overruled Roe and Casey. Chief Justice Roberts concurred in the judgment but would have discarded the viability line and upheld Mississippi's 15-week law without fully overruling Roe and Casey. Justice Kavanaugh concurred that the Constitution is neutral on abortion and stressed that other precedents concerning contraception and marriage were not before the Court. Justice Thomas concurred to question the legitimacy of substantive due process more broadly. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented, arguing that the majority's approach imperils broader liberty interests and disregards the reliance and equality dimensions of the abortion right.
Dobbs overhauls the constitutional landscape of reproductive rights by eliminating the federal constitutional protection for abortion recognized in Roe and Casey. It returns primary authority over abortion policy to states, prompting a patchwork of laws ranging from near-total bans to statutory protections. The case reshapes substantive due process jurisprudence by reaffirming a history-and-tradition methodology and rejecting viability and the undue burden test. It also provides a prominent, controversial application of stare decisis, offering a case study in when the Court will overrule entrenched precedent. For law students, Dobbs is essential to understanding: (1) the Glucksberg test for unenumerated rights; (2) rational basis review in morally contested areas; (3) the institutional role of the Court vis-à-vis democratic processes; and (4) the ongoing doctrinal and practical consequences, including state constitutional litigation, questions about interstate travel, medication abortion, and the scope of federal preemption and federal statutory obligations.
After Dobbs, abortion regulations are reviewed under rational basis unless they implicate a distinct constitutional provision (for example, free speech, due process in criminal procedure, or equal protection in a specific context). Under rational basis, a law is upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest, such as protecting prenatal life, maternal health, or medical ethics.
The Dobbs majority stated that abortion is unique because it involves fetal life and that its decision should not be understood to cast doubt on precedents such as Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence emphasized the same point. However, Justice Thomas's concurrence invited reconsideration of substantive due process jurisprudence more broadly. As a result, while Dobbs does not overrule those cases, it has sparked debate about their foundations and future stability.
Both were discarded. The Court held that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion; therefore, states may regulate or prohibit abortions before or after viability, subject to rational basis review. The viability line was deemed arbitrary and unworkable, and the undue burden test was criticized as indeterminate and difficult to apply consistently.
The Court applied traditional factors—quality of reasoning, workability, consistency with other law, reliance interests, and changed facts. It concluded that Roe and Casey were egregiously wrong, unworkable (due to the viability rule and undue burden test), in tension with other doctrines, and that reliance interests were limited and not of the type that would justify retaining a constitutional rule. Thus, stare decisis did not warrant preserving those precedents.
Authority over abortion policy returned to states, many of which had trigger laws or pre-Roe bans that quickly took effect. This has led to divergent state regimes and new litigation under state constitutions, as well as federal questions about interstate travel, access to medication abortion approved by the FDA, the scope of federal preemption, and how federal statutes (such as EMTALA) interact with state abortion restrictions.
Dobbs marks a profound reorientation of constitutional law, rejecting a half-century-old framework in favor of a history-and-tradition approach to unenumerated rights and returning abortion regulation to the political process. For practitioners and scholars, it demands mastery of rational basis review in this context and a close reading of how the Court now identifies and limits substantive due process rights.
Beyond abortion, the case spotlights the Court's willingness to reconsider precedent when it finds decisions egregiously wrong or unworkable, reshaping debates on judicial restraint, federalism, and individual liberty. Dobbs will continue to influence litigation strategies in state and federal courts and remains essential reading for understanding the Supreme Court's current constitutional methodology.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →