Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 202.0

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

55 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

rights than their mothers and grandmothers had.  The ma-
jority accomplishes that result without so much as consid-
ering how women have relied on the right to choose or what
it  means  to  take  that  right  away.    The  majority’s  refusal 
even to consider the life-altering consequences of reversing 
Roe and Casey is a stunning indictment of its decision. 

D 
One  last  consideration  counsels  against  the  majority’s
ruling:  the  very  controversy  surrounding  Roe  and  Casey. 
The majority accuses Casey of acting outside the bounds of
the law to quell the conflict over abortion—of imposing an 
unprincipled  “settlement”  of  the  issue  in  an  effort  to  end
“national division.”  Ante, at 67.  But that is not what Casey 
did.  As shown above, Casey applied traditional principles 
of stare decisis—which the majority today ignores—in reaf-
firming  Roe.  Casey  carefully  assessed  changed  circum-
stances (none) and reliance interests (profound).  It consid-
ered  every  aspect  of  how  Roe’s  framework  operated.  It 
adhered to the law in its analysis, and it reached the con-
clusion that the law required.  True enough that Casey took 
notice  of  the  “national  controversy”  about  abortion:  The 
Court knew in 1992, as it did in 1973, that abortion was a 
“divisive issue.”  Casey, 505 U. S., at 867–868; see Roe, 410 
U. S., at 116.  But Casey’s reason for acknowledging public 
conflict was the exact opposite of what the majority insinu-
ates.  Casey addressed the national controversy in order to
emphasize how important it was, in that case of all cases,
for the Court to stick to the law.  Would that today’s major-
ity had done likewise.

Consider how the majority itself summarizes this aspect 

of Casey: 

“The American people’s belief in the rule of law would 
be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an insti-
tution that decides important cases based on principle, 
not ‘social and political pressures.’  There is a special