Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 64.0

56  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

failed  to  say  that  they  agreed  with  the  viability  rule;  in-
stead, they candidly acknowledged “the reservations [some]
of us may have in reaffirming [that] holding of Roe.”  Id., at 
853. 

The controlling opinion criticized and rejected  Roe’s tri-
mester  scheme,  505  U. S.,  at  872,  and  substituted  a  new 
“undue burden” test, but the basis for this test was obscure. 
And as we will explain, the test is full of ambiguities and is
difficult to apply.
  Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected im-
portant aspects of Roe’s analysis, failed to remedy glaring 
deficiencies  in  Roe’s  reasoning,  endorsed  what  it  termed 
Roe’s  central  holding  while  suggesting  that  a  majority
might not have thought it was correct, provided no new sup-
port for the abortion right other than Roe’s status as prece-
dent, and imposed a new and problematic test with no firm 
grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.

As discussed below, Casey also deployed a novel version 
of the doctrine of stare decisis.  See infra, at 64–69.  This 
new doctrine did not account for the profound wrongness of 
the decision in Roe, and placed great weight on an intangi-
ble form of reliance with little if any basis in prior case law. 
Stare decisis does not command the preservation of such a
decision. 

C 
Workability.  Our  precedents  counsel  that  another  im-
portant  consideration  in  deciding  whether  a  precedent
should be overruled is whether the rule it imposes is work-
able—that is, whether it can be understood and applied in
a consistent and predictable manner.  Montejo v. Louisiana, 
556 U. S. 778, 792 (2009); Patterson v. McLean Credit Un-
ion, 491 U. S. 164, 173 (1989); Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. 
v.  Mayacamas  Corp.,  485  U. S.  271,  283–284  (1988).    Ca-
sey’s “undue burden” test has scored poorly on the worka-
bility scale.