Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 122.0

6  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

THOMAS, J., concurring 

of contraceptives to unmarried persons).  Statutory classifi-
cations implicating certain “nonfundamental” rights, mean-
while, receive only cursory review.  See, e.g., Armour v. In-
dianapolis, 566 U. S. 673, 680 (2012).  Similarly, this Court
deems unconstitutionally “vague” or “overbroad” those laws
that  impinge  on  its  preferred  rights,  while  letting  slide 
those  laws  that  implicate  supposedly  lesser  values.  See, 
e.g., Johnson, 576 U. S., at 618–621 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); 
United  States  v.  Sineneng-Smith,  590  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 3–5).  “In fact, 
our vagueness doctrine served as the basis for the first draft
of  the  majority  opinion  in  Roe  v.  Wade,”  and  it  since  has 
been  “deployed  . . .  to  nullify  even  mild  regulations  of  the 
abortion industry.”  Johnson, 576 U. S., at 620–621 (opinion 
of THOMAS, J.).  Therefore, regardless of the doctrinal con-
text, the Court often “demand[s] extra justifications for en-
croachments”  on  “preferred  rights”  while  “relax[ing]  pur-
portedly  higher 
less-
preferred  rights.”  Whole  Woman’s  Health  v.  Hellerstedt, 
579  U. S.  582,  640–642  (2016)  (THOMAS,  J.,  dissenting). 
Substantive due process is the core inspiration for many of 
the Court’s constitutionally unmoored policy judgments.

standards 

review 

for 

of 

Third, substantive due process is often wielded to “disas-
trous ends.”  Gamble, 587 U. S., at ___ (THOMAS, J., concur-
ring) (slip op., at 16).  For instance, in Dred Scott v. Sand-
ford,  19  How.  393  (1857),  the  Court  invoked  a  species  of 
substantive  due  process  to  announce  that  Congress  was
powerless to emancipate slaves brought into the federal ter-
ritories.  See id., at 452.  While Dred Scott “was overruled 
on  the  battlefields  of  the  Civil  War  and  by  constitutional 
amendment  after  Appomattox,”  Obergefell,  576  U. S.,  at 
696  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  dissenting),  that  overruling  was 
“[p]urchased  at  the  price  of  immeasurable  human  suffer-
ing,” Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U. S. 200, 240 
(1995)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in 
judgment).  Now today, the Court rightly overrules Roe and