Editing Planned Parenthood v. Casey (section)

==Supreme Court's holdings overturned==
{{Main|Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization}}
In May 2022, ''[[Politico]]'' obtained a leaked initial draft majority opinion written by Justice [[Samuel Alito]] suggesting that the Supreme Court was poised to overturn ''Casey'' along with ''Roe'' in a pending final decision on ''[[Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization]].''<ref name="Politico.com">{{cite web |first1=Josh|last1=Gerstein|first2=Alexander|last2=Ward|title=Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473 |date=May 2, 2022|access-date=May 3, 2022 |website=[[Politico]]}}</ref> On June 24, 2022, the final opinion was issued,<ref name="Justia 2022">{{cite web|url=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/597/19-1392/|title=Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U. S. ____ (2022)|website=Justia|date=June 24, 2022|access-date=June 27, 2022}}</ref> with the Court overturning the "essential opinion" in ''Roe'',{{efn|"[T]he Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion ... The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of [a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents] ... The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority ... ."}} criticizing the ''Casey'' Court's failure to address the deficiencies of the ''Roe'' decision{{efn|"Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected important aspects of ''Roe''{{'s}} analysis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in ''Roe''{{'s}} reasoning, endorsed what it termed ''Roe''{{'s}} central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion right other than ''Roe''{{'s}} status as precedent, and imposed a new test with no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent ... ."}} and overturning the "key judgment" in ''Casey''.{{efn|"Under the Court's precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge. Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot 'substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.'"}}

The dissenting opinion<ref name="Justia 2022"/> disputed the majority's opinion that the "undue burden" standard was not workable, and criticized the majority for overturning precedent,{{efn|"By overruling ''Roe'', ''Casey'', and more than 20 cases reaffirming or applying the constitutional right to abortion, the majority abandons ''stare decisis'', a principle central to the rule of law. {{'}}''Stare decisis''{{'}} means 'to stand by things decided.' ... It maintains a stability that allows people to order their lives under the law."}} holding that their reasoning was not sufficient to overrule ''Roe'' and ''Casey'',{{efn|"''Stare decisis'' also 'contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government' by ensuring that decisions 'are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.' As Hamilton wrote: It 'avoid[s] an arbitrary discretion in the courts.' And as Blackstone said before him: It 'keep[s] the scale of justice even and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s opinion.' The 'glory' of our legal system is that it 'gives preference to precedent rather than . . . jurists.' ... That means the Court may not overrule a decision, even a constitutional one, without a 'special justification.' ''Stare decisis'' is, of course, not an 'inexorable command'; it is sometimes appropriate to overrule an earlier decision. But the Court must have a good reason to do so over and above the belief 'that the precedent was wrongly decided.'"}} which they described as a precedent about precedent, and warned that by the same reasoning many other rights would be under threat.{{efn|"And no one should be confident that this majority is done with its work. The right ''Roe'' and ''Casey'' recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions. The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that nothing it does 'cast[s] doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.' But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not 'deeply rooted in history': Not until ''Roe'', the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution's guarantee of liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, 'there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].' So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority's opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."}}{{Relevance inline|reason=WP:ROC Minority opinions have no relevance to the law of the case in U.S. jurisprudence. This belongs in the wikipedia entry for Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, not here.|date=July 2022}}