Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

60  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

Opinion of the Court 

the deciding vote—argued that “[n]othing about Casey sug-
gested that a weighing of costs and benefits of an abortion 
regulation was a job for the courts.”  Id., at ___ (opinion con-
curring in judgment) (slip op., at 6).  And the four Justices 
in  dissent  rejected  the  plurality’s  interpretation  of  Casey. 
See 591 U. S., at ___ (opinion of ALITO, J., joined in relevant 
part by THOMAS, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ.) (slip op., 
at 4); id., at ___–___ (opinion of GORSUCH, J.) (slip op., at 
15–18); id., at ___–___ (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op.,
at  1–2)  (“[F]ive  Members  of  the  Court  reject  the  Whole 
Woman’s Health cost-benefit standard”).

This  Court’s  experience  applying  Casey  has  confirmed 
Chief  Justice  Rehnquist’s  prescient  diagnosis  that  the 
undue-burden standard was “not built to last.”  Casey, 505 
U. S., at 965 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and 
dissenting in part). 

3 
The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further
evidence  that  Casey’s  “line  between”  permissible  and  un-
constitutional  restrictions  “has  proved  to  be  impossible  to
draw with precision.”  Janus, 585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 
38). 

Casey has generated a long list of Circuit conflicts.  Most 
recently,  the  Courts  of  Appeals  have  disagreed  about 
whether  the  balancing  test  from  Whole  Woman’s  Health 
correctly states the undue-burden framework.53  They have
disagreed  on  the  legality  of  parental  notification  rules.54 

—————— 

53 Compare Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, 10 F. 4th 430, 440 (CA5 
2021), EMW Women’s Surgical Center, P.S.C. v. Friedlander, 978 F. 3d 
418,  437  (CA6  2020),  and  Hopkins  v.  Jegley,  968  F. 3d  912,  915  (CA8 
2020) (per curiam), with Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Box, 
991 F. 3d 740, 751–752 (CA7 2021). 

54 Compare Planned Parenthood of Blue Ridge v.  Camblos, 155 F. 3d 
352, 367 (CA4 1998), with Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc. v. Ad-