Law Commons^™

Decoding Dobbs: A Typology To Better Understand The Roberts Court's Jurisprudence, Katie Yoder

Honors Projects

The U.S. Supreme Court first recognized Substantive Due Process (“SDP”) in the early twentieth century. In Lochner v. New York, the Court established that there are certain unenumerated rights that are implied by the Fourteenth Amendment.Though SDP originated in a case about worker’s rights and liberties, it quickly became relevant to many cases surrounding personal intimate decisions involving health, safety, marriage, sexual activity, and reproduction.Over the past 60 years, the Court relied upon SDP to justify expanding a fundamental right to privacy, liberty, and the right to medical decision making. Specifically, the court applied these concepts to allow for freedoms …

Charging Abortion, Milan Markovic

Faculty Scholarship

As long as Roe v. Wade remained good law, prosecutors could largely avoid the question of abortion. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization has now placed prosecutors at the forefront of the abortion wars. Some chief prosecutors in antiabortion states have pledged to not enforce antiabortion laws, whereas others are targeting even out-of-state providers. This post-Dobbs reality, wherein the ability to obtain an abortion depends not only on the politics of one’s state but also the policies of one’s local district attorney, has received minimal scrutiny from legal scholars.

Prosecutors have broad charging discretion, …

Judicial Fidelity, Caprice L. Roberts

Journal Articles

Judicial critics abound. Some say the rule of law is dead across all three branches of government. Four are dead if you count the media as the fourth estate. All are in trouble, even if one approves of each branch’s headlines, but none of them are dead. Not yet.

Pundits and scholars see the latest term of the Supreme Court as clear evidence of partisan politics and unbridled power. They decry an upheaval of laws and norms demonstrating the dire situation across the federal judiciary. Democracy is not dead even when the Court issues opinions that overturn precedent, upends longstanding …

When Originalism Failed: Lessons From Tort Law, Donald G. Gifford, Richard C. Boldt, Christopher J. Robinette

Faculty Scholarship

Two recent Supreme Court decisions upended American life. Opinions released on consecutive days in June 2022 overturned the right of reproductive choice nationwide and invalidated a statute regulating the carrying of concealed weapons in New York. The opinions were united by a common methodology. Pursuant to what one scholar terms “thick” originalism, history, as told by the majority, dictated the resolution of constitutional disputes.

This Article explores the use of thick originalism in several celebrated torts cases that raised constitutional issues. These cases illustrate two significant kinds of problems associated with a rigid historical approach to constitutional interpretation. The first …

Brief Of Amici Curiae In Support Of The United States: Moyle & Idaho V. United States, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché

Amici Briefs

This amicus brief, submitted to the Supreme Court in Moyle v. United States, argues that Moyle, and the impending circuit split surrounding it, is a symptom of a larger workability problem with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization framework. Dobbs is already proving, in its brief existence, to be unworkable, and must be overturned. In short order, the Dobbs ruling has ushered in an era of unprecedented legal and doctrinal chaos, precipitating a fury of disorienting legal battles across the country. The Dobbs framework has created destabilizing conflicts between federal and state authorities, as in the current …

Originalism After Dobbs, Bruen, And Kennedy: The Role Of History And Tradition, Randy E. Barnett, Lawrence B. Solum

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In three recent cases, the constitutional concepts of history and tradition have played important roles in the reasoning of the Supreme Court. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization relied on history and tradition to overrule Roe v. Wade. New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen articulated a history and tradition test for the validity of laws regulating the right to bear arms recognized by the Second Amendment. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District looked to history and tradition in formulating the test for the consistency of state action with the Establishment Clause.

These cases raise important questions about …

Dobbs V. Jackson Women’S Health: Undermining Public Health, Facilitating Reproductive Coercion, Aziza Ahmed, Dabney P. Evans, Jason Jackson, Benjamin Mason Meier, Cecília Tomori

Faculty Scholarship

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health continues a trajectory of U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence that undermines the normative foundation of public health — the idea that the state is obligated to provide a robust set of supports for healthcare services and the underlying social determinants of health. Dobbs furthers a longstanding ideology of individual responsibility in public health, neglecting collective responsibility for better health outcomes. Such an ideology on individual responsibility not only enables a shrinking of public health infrastructure for reproductive health, it facilitates the rise of reproductive coercion and a criminal legal response to pregnancy and abortion. This commentary …

(Re)Criminalizing Abortion: Returning To The Political With Stories, George J. Annas

Faculty Scholarship

Abortion stories have always played a powerful role in advancing women’s rights. In the abortion sphere particularly, the personal is political. Following the Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade, abortion politics, and abortion storytelling, take on an even deeper political role in challenging the bloodless judicial language of Dobbs with the lived experience of women.

Pro-Choice Plans, Brendan S. Maher

Faculty Scholarship

After Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Constitution may no longer protect abortion, but a surprising federal statute does. That statute is called the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), and it has long been one of the most powerful preemptive statutes in the entire United States Code. ERISA regulates “employee benefit plans,” which are the vehicle by which approximately 155 million people receive their health insurance. Plans are thus a major private payer for health benefits—and therefore abortions. While many post-Dobbs anti-abortion laws directly bar abortion by making either the receipt or provision of …

After Roe, After Dobbs, Angela Onwuachi-Willig

Shorter Faculty Works

Being able to control reproductive choices—having the ability to decide if and when to give birth and become a parent—is central to determining how one may build a life and future. For some, having control over their reproductive capacities could mean the difference between completing or not completing their education, taking advantage of a particular job opportunity or having to decline it, or moving or not moving to a different location. These decisions shape our economy and our society.

Law Library Blog (March 2023): Legal Beagle's Blog Archive, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Law Library Newsletters/Blog

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection In Dobbs And Beyond: How States Protect Life Inside And Outside Of The Abortion Context, Reva Siegel, Serena Mayeri, Melissa Murray

All Faculty Scholarship

In two paragraphs at the beginning of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court rejected the Equal Protection Clause as an alternative ground for the abortion right. As the parties had not asserted an equal protection claim on which the Court could rule, Justice Alito cited an amicus brief we co-authored demonstrating that Mississippi’s abortion ban violated the Equal Protection Clause, and, in dicta, stated that precedents foreclosed the brief’s arguments. Yet, Justice Alito did not address a single equal protection case or argument on which the brief relied. Instead, he cited Geduldig v. Aiello, a 1974 case …

Justices Citing Justices, Jay D. Wexler

Faculty Scholarship

Scholars have long paid attention to how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite law review articles and academic books in their opinions. More recently, a new area of scholarship has begun to look at how Justices create their own lines of “personal precedent” through not only their prior opinions but also their academic writings. At the intersection of these two areas of inquiry lies questions of how often and for what reasons Supreme Court justices cite the journal articles and books of the various justices sitting on the Court, including their own. With the exception of one …

Dobbs In A Technologized World: Implications For Us Data Privacy, Jheel Gosain, Jason D. Keune, Michael S. Sinha

All Faculty Scholarship

In June of 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning 50 years of precedent by eliminating the federal constitutional right to abortion care established by the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. The Dobbs decision leaves the decision about abortion services in the hands of the states, which created an immediately variegated checkerboard of access to women’s healthcare across the country. This in turn laid bare a profusion of privacy issues that emanate from our technologized world. We review these privacy issues, including healthcare data, financial data, website tracking and …

Abortion Pills, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché

Articles

Abortion is now illegal in roughly a third of the country, but abortion pills are more widely available than ever before. Though antiabortion advocates and legislators are attacking pills with all manner of strategies, clinics, websites, and informal networks are openly facilitating the distribution of abortion pills, legally and illegally, across the United States. This Article is the first to explain this defining aspect of the post-Roe environment and the novel issues it raises at the level of state law, federal policy, and on-the-ground advocacy.

This Article first details antiabortion strategies to stop pills by any means necessary. These tactics …

Deducting Dobbs: The Tax Treatment Of Abortion-Related Travel Benefits, Samantha J. Prince

Faculty Scholarly Works

In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey thereby giving the states carte blanche to do as they wish regarding abortion access. The decision created upheaval in the United States. However, it also provided the impetus for the creation of a new employee benefit, abortion-related travel benefits.

Thirteen states had anti-abortion trigger bans that were unenforceable until Dobbs. Several other states have passed legislation that criminalizes, or significantly restricts, abortion access. Women residing in these states will now endure greater financial, health, and temporal challenges to travel out of state …

Feminist Legal Theory And Praxis After Dobbs: Science, Politics, And Expertise, Aziza Ahmed

Faculty Scholarship

Fifty years ago, in Roe v. Wade, Justice Blackmun set into motion the idea that abortion should be a decision between a woman and her doctor.' That idea traveled from the Supreme Court decision to popular discourse; with it, came the notion that when it comes to reproduction, medical experts are a key part of women's liberation. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, the court ignored the role of experts and threw the question of who should decide when and how a person has an abortion to the people. In my essay for this symposium issue dedicated to feminist …

Employer-Sponsored Reproduction, Valarie Blake, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

This Article interrogates the current and future role of employer-sponsored health insurance in reproductive choice, revealing the magnitude of impact that employers’ insurance coverage choices have on Americans’ access to reproductive care, as well as the legal infrastructure that prioritizes employer choice over individual autonomy.

Over half the population depends on employers for health insurance. The laws regulating those plans grant employers discretion in what services to cover, with exceptionally wide latitude for employers’ choices about reproductive care services, like abortion, contraception, infertility, and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In their role as health care funders, employers pursue their own economic interests, …

Hipaa V. Dobbs, Wendy A. Bach, Nicolas Terry

Scholarly Works

A few days after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, the Biden administration issued guidance seeking to reassure doctors and patients that the federal HIPAA Privacy Rule would allow women to feel confident that they could still seek reproductive healthcare without worrying that the information in their medical records would end up in the hands of police. As scholars focused respectively on the criminalization of poverty and reproductive conduct (Wendy Bach) and health policy and privacy (Nicolas Terry), we were less than reassured. We write this essay to emphasize how, rather than revealing the strength of …

Supreme Court Legitimacy Under Threat? The Role Of Cues In How The Public Responds To Supreme Court Decisions., Laura Moyer, Scott S. Boddery, Jeff Yates, Lindsay Caudill

Faculty Scholarship

Understanding how the public views the Court and its rulings is crucial to assessing its institutional stability. However, as scholars note, “People are broadly supportive of the court and believe in its ‘legitimacy’—that is, that Supreme Court rulings should be respected and followed. But we don’t know that much about whether people actually agree with the case outcomes themselves.” In this article, we highlight empirical research investigating the factors that affect public agreement with Court decisions, highlighting recent developments from our work. At the onset, it is to note that the public generally hears about the Court’s decisions from media …

A Way Forward After Dobbs: Human Rights Advocacy And Self-Managed Abortion In The United States, Kelly Keglovits

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Even in the era before Dobbs, wherein the Supreme Court repeatedly classified abortion as a "fundamental right," the ability to have an abortion was inaccessible in many parts of the United States. The irony that a "fundamental right" was so difficult to exercise results from how Constitutional rights are understood, which left many open-ended avenues for states to bring restrictions. International Human Rights law, however, offers a more optimistic and accountable approach to steps forward in increasing abortion access—illustrating a need to bring a human rights-based approach home. Dobbs has eviscerated any concept of federal protections for abortion, severely worsening …

Dobbs Is Not A Religion Case, Bruce Ledewitz

Law Faculty Publications

I was unhappy, but not surprised, to see Canopy Forum including Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that overruled Roe v. Wade, in a call for submissions under the rubric, “Law and Religion in Pressing Supreme Court Cases.” I was not surprised because, for years, many critics have labeled pro-life opposition to Roe a purely religious viewpoint. But there is nothing inherently religious about qualms concerning abortion, nor is there anything specifically religious in the Dobbs majority opinion.

Abortion, Pregnancy Loss, & Subjective Fetal Personhood, Greer Donley, Jill Wieber Lens

Articles

Longstanding dogma dictates that recognizing pregnancy loss threatens abortion rights—acknowledging that miscarriage and stillbirth involve a loss, the theory goes, creates a slippery slope to fetal personhood. For decades, anti-abortion advocates have capitalized on this tension and weaponized the grief that can accompany pregnancy loss in their efforts to legislate personhood and end abortion rights. In response, abortion rights advocates have at times fought legislative efforts to support those experiencing pregnancy loss, and more recently, remained silent, alienating those who suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth.

This Article is the first to argue that this perceived tension can be reconciled through …

The New Abortion Battleground, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché

Articles

This Article examines the paradigm shift that is occurring now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade. Returning abortion law to the states has spawned perplexing legal conflicts across state borders and between states and the federal government. This article emphasizes how these issues intersect with innovations in the delivery of abortion, which can now occur entirely online and transcend state boundaries. The interjurisdictional abortion wars are coming, and this Article is the first to provide the roadmap for the immediate aftermath of Roe’s reversal and what lies ahead.

Judges and scholars, and most recently the Supreme …

Re-Thinking Strategy After Roe, David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, Rachel Rebouché

Articles

The Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturns nearly fifty years of precedent and radically changes abortion law, throwing both sides of the debate into uncharted territory. This essay, published in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs, offers some initial thoughts about what the changed legal landscape means for abortion rights legal advocacy. Our focus in recent writings has been to identify concrete measures federal and state actors can take to secure abortion access after Dobbs. Here, we investigate a more overarching concern: what fundamental values and strategies should govern the abortion rights movement going …

Yes, Alito, There Is A Right To Privacy: Why The Leaked Dobbs Opinion Is Doctrinally Unsound, Nancy C. Marcus

Faculty Scholarship

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court released the final Dobbs majority opinion, which is substantially identical to the draft opinion. Consequently, the critique contained in this essay applies equally to the final Dobbs opinion.

On May 2, 2022, a draft majority opinion dated February 2022 and authored by Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization was leaked to the public. This Essay addresses the doctrinal infirmities of the underlying analysis of the draft Dobbs opinion, as well as the resulting dangers posed for the protection of fundamental privacy rights and liberties in contexts even beyond abortion.

The …

Equal Protection And Abortion: Brief Of Equal Protection Constitutional Law Scholars Serena Mayeri, Melissa Murray, And Reva Siegel As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents In Dobbs V. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Reva Siegel, Melissa Murray, Serena Mayeri

All Faculty Scholarship

Equal Protection changes the questions we ask about abortion restrictions. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, an amicus brief filed on our behalf demonstrated that Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. The brief continues a tradition of equality arguments that preceded Roe v. Wade and will continue, in new forms, after Dobbs. Our brief shows how the canonical equal protection cases United States v. Virginia and Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs extend to the regulation of pregnancy, hence provide an independent constitutional basis for abortion rights.

Under equal …