Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 206.0

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

59 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

scrutiny.”  Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson, 594 U. S. ___, 
___ (2021) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1).  And 
five  Justices  acceded  to  that  cynical  maneuver.    They  let
Texas  defy  this  Court’s  constitutional  rulings,  nullifying 
Roe  and  Casey  ahead  of  schedule  in  the  Nation’s  second 
largest State. 

And now the other shoe drops, courtesy of that same five-
person  majority.  (We  believe  that  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE’s 
opinion is wrong too, but no one should think that there is
not a large difference between upholding a 15-week ban on 
the grounds he does and allowing States to prohibit abor-
tion from the time of conception.)  Now a new and bare ma-
jority of this Court—acting at practically the first moment
possible—overrules Roe and Casey.  It converts a series of 
dissenting  opinions  expressing  antipathy  toward  Roe  and 
Casey  into  a  decision  greenlighting  even  total  abortion
bans.  See ante, at 57, 59, 63, and nn. 61–64 (relying on for-
mer  dissents).    It  eliminates  a  50-year-old  constitutional 
right that safeguards women’s freedom and equal station. 
It breaches a core rule-of-law principle, designed to promote 
constancy in the law.  In doing all of that, it places in jeop-
ardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy
and marriage.  And finally, it undermines the Court’s legit-
imacy. 

Casey  itself  made  the  last  point  in  explaining  why  it 
would not overrule Roe—though some members of its ma-
jority might not have joined Roe in the first instance.  Just 
as we did here, Casey explained the importance of stare de-
cisis; the inappositeness of West Coast Hotel and Brown; the 
absence  of  any  “changed  circumstances”  (or  other  reason) 
justifying the reversal of precedent.  505 U. S., at 864; see 
supra,  at  30–33,  37–47.    “[T]he  Court,”  Casey  explained,
“could not pretend” that overruling Roe had any “justifica-
tion beyond a present doctrinal disposition to come out dif-
ferently from the Court of 1973.”  505 U. S., at 864.  And to 
overrule for that reason?  Quoting Justice Stewart, Casey