Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

42  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

—————— 
Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. S. 528, 530 (1985) (rejecting the 
principle that the Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to en-
force requirements, such as minimum wage laws, against the States “ ‘in 
areas  of  traditional  governmental  functions’ ”),  overruling  National 
League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U. S. 833 (1976); Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 
213  (1983)  (the  Fourth  Amendment  requires  a  totality  of  the  circum-
stances approach for determining whether an informant’s tip establishes 
probable cause), overruling Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108 (1964), and 
Spinelli v. United States, 393 U. S. 410 (1969); United States v. Scott, 437 
U. S. 82 (1978) (the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to Govern-
ment appeals from orders granting defense motions to terminate a trial
before verdict), overruling United States v. Jenkins, 420 U. S. 358 (1975); 
Craig  v.  Boren,  429  U. S.  190  (1976)  (gender-based  classifications  are 
subject  to  intermediate  scrutiny  under  the  Equal  Protection  Clause), 
overruling Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464 (1948); Taylor v. Louisiana, 
419 U. S. 522 (1975) (jury system which operates to exclude women from 
jury service violates the defendant’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment 
right  to  an  impartial  jury),  overruling  Hoyt  v.  Florida,  368  U. S.  57 
(1961); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969) (per curiam) (the mere
advocacy of violence is protected under the First Amendment unless it is
directed to incite or produce imminent lawless action), overruling Whit-
ney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927); Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 
347,  351  (1967)  (Fourth  Amendment  “protects  people,  not  places,”  and 
extends  to  what  a  person  “seeks  to  preserve  as  private”),  overruling 
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), and Goldman v. United 
States, 316 U. S. 129 (1942); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966)
(procedural safeguards to protect the Fifth Amendment privilege against 
self-incrimination),  overruling  Crooker  v.  California,  357  U. S.  433 
(1958), and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 U. S. 504 (1958); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 
U. S. 1 (1964) (the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination
is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by
the States), overruling Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 (1908), and 
Adamson  v.  California,  332  U. S.  46  (1947);  Wesberry  v.  Sanders,  376 
U. S. 1, 7–8 (1964) (congressional districts should be apportioned so that
“as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election is 
to  be  worth  as  much  as  another’s”),  overruling  in  effect  Colegrove  v. 
Green, 328 U. S. 549 (1946); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963)
(right to counsel for indigent defendant in a criminal prosecution in state 
court under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments), overruling Betts v. 
Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942); Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962) (federal
courts have jurisdiction to consider constitutional challenges to state re-
districting plans), effectively overruling in part Colegrove, 328 U. S. 549;