Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 71

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

63 

Opinion of the Court 

in  part);  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  579  U. S.,  at  631–633 
(THOMAS, J., dissenting); id., at 645–666, 678–684 (ALITO, 
J.,  dissenting);  June  Medical,  591  U. S.,  at  ___–___ 
(GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 1–15).

The Court’s abortion cases have diluted the strict stand-
ard  for  facial  constitutional  challenges.60    They  have  ig-
nored  the  Court’s  third-party  standing  doctrine.61    They  
have disregarded standard res judicata principles.62  They
have flouted the ordinary rules on the severability of uncon-
stitutional  provisions,63  as  well  as  the  rule  that  statutes 
should  be  read  where  possible  to  avoid  unconstitutional-
ity.64   And  they  have  distorted  First  Amendment  doc-
trines.65 

When vindicating a doctrinal innovation requires courts
to  engineer  exceptions  to  longstanding  background  rules,
the doctrine “has failed to deliver the ‘principled and intel-
ligible’ development of the law that stare decisis purports to
secure.”  Id., at ___ (THOMAS, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 19) 
(quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986)). 

E 

Reliance interests.  We last consider whether overruling 
Roe  and  Casey  will  upend  substantial  reliance  interests. 

—————— 

60 Compare United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 745 (1987), with 

Casey, 505 U. S., at 895; see also supra, at 56–59. 

61 Compare Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 499 (1975), and Elk Grove 
Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U. S. 1, 15, 17–18 (2004), with June 
Medical, 591 U. S., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 28), id., at 
___–___ (GORSUCH, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 6–7) (collecting cases), and 
Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at 632, n. 1 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 
62 Compare  id.,  at  598–606  (majority  opinion),  with  id.,  at  645–666 

(ALITO, J., dissenting). 

63 Compare  id.,  at  623–626  (majority  opinion),  with  id.,  at  644–645 

(ALITO, J., dissenting). 

64 See Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 977–978 (2000) (Kennedy, J., 

dissenting); id., at 996–997 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). 

65 See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U. S. 703, 741–742 (2000) (Scalia, J., dis-

senting); id., at 765 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).