Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 123.0

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

7 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

Casey—two of this Court’s “most notoriously incorrect” sub-
stantive  due  process  decisions,  Timbs,  586  U. S.,  at  ___ 
(opinion of THOMAS, J.) (slip op., at 2)—after more than 63 
million abortions have been performed, see National Right 
to Life Committee, Abortion Statistics (Jan.  2022), https://
www.nrlc.org/uploads/factsheets/FS01AbortionintheUS.pdf.
The  harm  caused  by  this  Court’s  forays  into  substantive
due process remains immeasurable. 

* 

* 

* 
Because the Court properly applies our substantive due
process  precedents  to  reject  the  fabrication  of  a  constitu-
tional right to abortion, and because this case does not pre-
sent the opportunity to reject substantive due process en-
tirely, I join the Court’s opinion.  But, in future cases, we 
should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth 
certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and 
adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty,
or property is to be taken away.”  Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 
(opinion  of  Scalia,  J.).  Substantive  due  process  conflicts
with that textual command and has harmed our country in 
many ways.  Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our 
jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.