Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 162.0

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

15 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting 

did not understand women as full members of the commu-
nity embraced by the phrase “We the People.”  In 1868, the 
first  wave  of  American  feminists  were  explicitly  told—of 
course by men—that it was not their time to seek constitu-
tional protections.  (Women would not get even the vote for 
another half-century.)  To be sure, most women in 1868 also 
had a foreshortened view of their rights: If most men could
not  then  imagine  giving  women  control  over  their  bodies,
most women could not imagine having that kind of auton-
omy.  But  that  takes  away  nothing  from  the  core  point. 
Those  responsible  for  the  original  Constitution,  including
the  Fourteenth  Amendment,  did  not  perceive  women  as
equals,  and  did  not  recognize  women’s  rights.    When  the 
majority says that we must read our foundational charter 
as  viewed  at  the  time  of  ratification  (except  that  we  may
also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to 
second-class citizenship. 

Casey itself understood this point, as will become clear. 
See infra, at 23–24.  It recollected with dismay a decision
this  Court  issued  just  five  years  after  the  Fourteenth
Amendment’s  ratification,  approving  a  State’s  decision  to
deny a law license to a woman and suggesting as well that 
a woman had no legal status apart from her husband.  See 
505 U. S., at 896–897 (majority opinion) (citing Bradwell v. 
State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873)).  “There was a time,” Casey ex-
plained,  when  the  Constitution  did  not  protect  “men  and
women alike.”  505 U. S., at 896.  But times had changed.
A woman’s place in society had changed, and constitutional 
law had changed along with it.  The relegation of women to
inferior status in either the public sphere or the family was
“no longer consistent with our understanding” of the Con-
stitution.  Id., at 897.  Now, “[t]he Constitution protects all
individuals, male or female,” from “the abuse of governmen-
tal  power”  or  “unjustified  state  interference.”  Id.,  at  896, 
898. 

So  how  is  it  that,  as  Casey  said,  our  Constitution,  read