Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 81

20 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

when the Court broke new ground with its decisions in Gris-
wold and Roe.  And no one could seriously claim that these 
revolutionary  decisions—or  Whole  Woman’s  Health,  de-
cided just four Terms ago—are part of the “inheritance from 
our forefathers,” fidelity to which demonstrates “reverence 
to  antiquity.”  E.  Burke,  Reflections  on  the  Revolution  in 
France 27–28 (J. Pocock ed. 1987).

More importantly, we exceed our constitutional authority
whenever  we  “appl[y]  demonstrably  erroneous  precedent 
instead of the relevant law’s text.”  Gamble, supra, at ___ 
(THOMAS,  J.,  concurring)  (slip  op.,  at  2).    Because  we  can 
reconcile  neither  Roe  nor  its  progeny  with  the  text  of  our
Constitution, those decisions should be overruled.  

* 

* 
Because  we  lack  jurisdiction  and  our  abortion  jurispru-
dence finds no basis in the Constitution, I respectfully dis-
sent.8 

* 

—————— 

8 I agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s application of our precedents except in 
Part IV–F of his opinion, but I would not remand for further proceedings.
Because  plaintiffs  lack  standing  under  Article  III,  I  would  instead  re-
mand with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  Alternatively, 
if I were to reach the merits because a majority of the Court concludes 
we  have  jurisdiction,  I  would  affirm,  as  plaintiffs  have  failed  to  carry
their burden of demonstrating that Act 620 is unconstitutional, even un-
der our precedents.