Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 117.0

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

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 19–1392 
_________________ 

THOMAS E. DOBBS, STATE HEALTH OFFICER OF 
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S 
HEALTH ORGANIZATION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

[June 24, 2022] 

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. 
I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly holds 
that there is no constitutional right to abortion.  Respond-
ents  invoke  one  source  for  that  right:  the  Fourteenth 
Amendment’s  guarantee  that  no  State  shall  “deprive  any 
person  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of 
law.”  The Court well explains why, under our substantive
due process precedents, the purported right to abortion is 
not a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause. 
Such a right is neither “deeply rooted in this Nation’s his-
tory and tradition” nor “implicit in the concept of ordered 
liberty.”  Washington  v.  Glucksberg,  521  U. S.  702,  721 
(1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).  “[T]he idea that
the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the 
Due Process Clause to protect a right to abortion is farcical.” 
June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 591 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2020) (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 17).

I  write  separately  to  emphasize  a  second,  more  funda-
mental reason why there is no abortion guarantee lurking 
in  the  Due  Process  Clause.  Considerable  historical  evi-
dence indicates that “due process of law” merely required
executive and judicial actors to comply with legislative en-
actments and the common law when depriving a person of