Polls show that public approval of the court has dropped in recent months
, notably since September
1 when the majority allowed a Texas ban on abortions after roughly six weeks of pregnancy to take effect even as litigation over the law that plainly conflicts with Roe v
. Wade was underway
. Roberts broke from his colleagues on the right wing in that case
, dissenting as he wrote that the court should at least temporarily suspend the ban while courts assessed the validity of the law
. 법정 heard oral arguments
11 월 1 and has yet to rule
Unlike the distinct procedural dispute in the Texas case
, the Mississippi abortion controversy goes right to the heart of abortion rights
, testing whether women nationwide have a right to end a pregnancy before viability
. 그건, when a fetus can live outside the womb
, ...에서 22-24 주.
Both Roe v. 걸어 건너기, nearly a half century ago, and the decision that affirmed it two decades later, Planned Parenthood v. 케이시, declared viability to be the cutoff line for when the pregnant woman’s interest could be eclipsed by protection for the fetus.
“Casey reaffirmed ‘the most central principle of Roe v. 걸어 건너기,’ ‘a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy before viability,'” Roberts wrote in a 2020 Louisiana case as he quoted the 1992 결정.
The question now is whether that line will hold.
The Reagan and Bush years
After graduating from Harvard law school and completing a Supreme Court clerkship with then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Roberts joined the Reagan administration in 1981.
Reagan had campaigned on a platform against Roe v. Wade and a declaration of “the sanctity of innocent human life.” His administration worked against reproductive rights in its policy agenda and court filings.
로버츠, who was a junior lawyer in the Reagan Justice Department and then White House counsel’s office, assumed more responsibility for the administration’s legal agenda when the first President Bush came to office in 1989. Roberts became deputy US solicitor general, representing the federal government before the high court.
Roberts shepherded the
1991 경우에 Rust v. 설리반
, as the administration argued it could forbid family planning clinics that received federal funds from providing abortion counseling
. The case tested whether that prohibition impinged the free speech of physicians and other health care providers
“We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,” the Bush administration asserted in the brief signed by Roberts. It contended Roe v. Wade lacked any support in the Constitution’s text or history. The high court had grounded the right to end a pregnancy in the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process guarantee of personal liberty and relied on past cases affirming personal privacy rights.
The Supreme Court ruled narrowly for the Bush administration in Rust v. 설리반, letting the government forbid abortion-related counseling at federally funded clinics, but forgoing any new review of Roe.
The following year
, 에 1992 Planned Parenthood v. 케이시
케이스, justices in the majority highlighted at the outset that the Reagan and Bush administrations had argued in a total of six cases over the previous decade for reversal of Roe
: “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt
. 아직 19 years after our holding that the Constitution protects a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy in its early stages
, that definition is still questioned
. Joining the respondents as amicus curiae
, 미국, as it has done in five other cases in the last decade
, again asks us to overrule Roe.
On the bench
During Senate hearings when President George W. Bush chose him first for a US appellate court and then elevated him to the Supreme Court, Roberts said his arguments on behalf of past administrations reflected his professional advocacy and not necessarily his personal views. He also said Roe was entitled to respect under principles of “stare decisis,” 그건, adherence to precedent.
Unlike fellow conservative 판사 클라렌스 토마스
, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch
, Roberts has declined to publicly press for reconsideration of Roe in his writings as a justice
He also has not voted as rigidly against abortion rights as Justice Brett Kavanaugh or been as personally outspoken as Barrett. Before becoming a judge, Barrett, a Notre Dame law professor, was a vocal critic of Roe v. 걸어 건너기, including signing a statement that denounced Roe’s “barbaric legacy” and called for “the unborn to be protected in law.”
Roberts is a lifelong Catholic whose wife, 여자, provided pro bono legal counsel to anti-abortion nonprofit Feminists for Life. Roberts told senators in 2005 that his faith would not be a factor in his rulings.
Two years after his confirmation, Roberts helped forge a five-justice bloc to rule that the federal government could ban an abortion procedure in which the woman’s cervix is dilated and the fetus is removed intact. Critics called it “partial birth abortion.” 그만큼 2007 Supreme Court decision essentially reversed a 2000 ruling that had invalidated a similar prohibition on the procedure under Nebraska law.
The Supreme Court’s next major abortion case came nearly a decade later, 에 2016, and Roberts dissented as the majority struck down Texas requirements that physicians who perform abortions obtain “admitting privileges” at a local hospital and clinics convert to costly, hospital-grade facilities.
But in a
2020 dispute over similar physician credentialing requirements in Louisiana
, Roberts voted against the law based on that
2016 전례. Roberts said he still disagreed with the
2016 decision but would follow it as precedent
. His rationale and key decisive vote in that case of June Medical Services v
. Russo would
, 하나, bolster states’ ability to defend abortion regulations
The Mississippi case stands to transform reproductive rights. It centers not on a discrete regulation of abortion but a wholesale ban after 15 임신 주. The state wants the high court to reverse the holding of Roe that protects a woman’s decision to end a pregnancy before viability.
Mississippi officials assert that “Roe and Casey are indefensible,” and they retrieve lines from Roberts’ opinion in the 2020 Louisiana case suggesting the balancing of government interests and women’s reproductive rights should be left to “legislators, not judges.”
Mississippi’s lawyers highlight Roberts
’ vote and concurring opinion in the
2010 경우에 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
, when the justices by a
5-4 vote reversed precedent and lifted regulations on corporate independent expenditures in election campaigns
“Stare decisis’s ‘greatest purpose is to serve a constitutional ideal — the rule of law,'” the Mississippi state lawyers write, adopting Roberts’ phrasing from 2010 and arguing that “adhering to Roe and Casey ‘does more to damage this constitutional ideal than to advance it.'”
A group of constitutional law scholars backing the Jackson Women’s Health Organization counter those arguments with other lines from Roberts’ Citizens Union opinion, noting he wrote that “Fidelity to precedent—the policy of stare decisis—is vital to the proper exercise of the judicial function.” Even as he voted to overturn precedent, Roberts had observed in that case that stare decisis promotes predictable development of the law, fosters reliance on rulings and contributes to perceptions of judicial integrity.
Jackson Women’s Health Organization itself briefly cites Citizen United as it asserts that while some may disagree with past rulings, “it is critical that judicial protection hold firm absent the most dramatic and unexpected changes in law or fact,” so justices not be seen as merely exercising their own preferences.
Other supporters of Jackson Women’s Health Organization, including the Department of Justice, represented by the administration of Joe Biden, revive Roberts’ assertion from the June Medical Services case that “for precedent to mean anything, the doctrine (of stare decisis) must give way only to a rationale that goes beyond whether the case was decided correctly.”
And that is the essence of the Supreme Court’s loyalty to precedent. The principle goes beyond whether a decision can be called “옳은” 또는 “incorrect,” to whether it remains so central to the fabric of American law and sufficiently relied on to — 결국 — preserve.