Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 146.0

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

11 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a seri-
ous  jolt  to  the  legal  system—regardless  of  how  you  view 
those cases.  A narrower decision rejecting  the misguided 
viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and noth-
ing more is needed to decide this case.   

Our cases say that the effect of overruling a precedent on 
reliance interests is a factor to consider in deciding whether
to take such a step, and respondents argue that generations
of women have relied on the right to an abortion in organ-
izing their relationships and planning their futures.  Brief 
for  Respondents  36–41;  see  also  Casey,  505  U. S.,  at  856 
(making  the  same  point).    The  Court  questions  whether
these  concerns  are  pertinent  under  our  precedents,  see 
ante,  at  64–65,  but  the  issue  would  not  even  arise  with  a 
decision rejecting only the viability line: It cannot reasona-
bly be argued that women have shaped their lives in part 
on the assumption that they would be able to abort up to 
viability, as opposed to fifteen weeks. 

In  support  of  its  holding,  the  Court  cites  three  seminal 
constitutional decisions that involved overruling prior prec-
edents: Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), 
West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), 
and West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (1937). 
See ante, at 40–41.  The opinion in Brown was unanimous 
and  eleven  pages  long;  this  one  is  neither.    Barnette  was 
decided  only  three  years  after  the  decision  it  overruled, 
three Justices having had second thoughts.  And West Coast 
Hotel was issued against a backdrop of unprecedented eco-
nomic  despair  that  focused  attention  on  the  fundamental
flaws of existing precedent.  It also was part of a sea change 
in  this  Court’s  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  “sig-
nal[ing]  the  demise  of  an  entire  line  of  important  prece-
dents,” ante, at 40—a feature the Court expressly disclaims 
in today’s decision, see ante, at 32, 66.  None of these lead-
ing cases, in short, provides a template for what the Court
does today.