Planned Parenthood v. Casey: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=Yes " to "") |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|date=June 29, 1992 | |date=June 29, 1992 | ||
|subject=Constitutional Law | |subject=Constitutional Law | ||
|partially_overturned=Roe v. Wade | |partially_overturned=Roe v. Wade | ||
|facts=Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions related to abortion, including a requirement to inform the spouse prior to the abortion. | |facts=Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions related to abortion, including a requirement to inform the spouse prior to the abortion. | ||
|issues=Is the spousal awareness requirement valid? | |issues=Is the spousal awareness requirement valid? | ||
|holding=No. | |holding=No. | ||
The Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions | The Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in [[Roe v. Wade]] (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions. The husband notification provision is an undue burden. | ||
| | |rule=A state abortion regulation that imposes an "undue burden" in restricting abortions is unconstitutional. An "<span style="background:magenta">undue burden</span>" is a "<span style="background:magenta">substantial</span> obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability." | ||
|comments=In an unusual move, the opinion was co-authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Of this opinion, parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI were joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, parts V-E were joined by Stevens, and parts IV, V-B, and V-D were joined by no other justices. | |||
|comments=In an unusual move, the opinion was co-authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Of this opinion, parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI were joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, parts V-E were joined by Stevens, and | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 | |link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/91-744 | ||
| Line 33: | Line 27: | ||
|opinion_type=plurality | |opinion_type=plurality | ||
|written_by=Sandra Day O'Connor*Anthony M. Kennedy*David H. Souter | |written_by=Sandra Day O'Connor*Anthony M. Kennedy*David H. Souter | ||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
|written_by=John Paul Stevens | |written_by=John Paul Stevens | ||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
|written_by=Harry Blackmun | |written_by=Harry Blackmun | ||
}}{{Court opinion part | }}{{Court opinion part | ||
|opinion_type=concur/dissent | |opinion_type=concur/dissent | ||
Latest revision as of 03:36, July 14, 2023
| Planned Parenthood v. Casey | |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 505 U.S. 833 (1992) |
| Date decided | June 29, 1992 |
| Partially overturned | Roe v. Wade |
| Overturned by | |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization | |
| Case Opinions | |
| majority | written by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter joined by Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens |
| plurality | written by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter joined by John Paul Stevens |
| plurality | written by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, David H. Souter |
| concur/dissent | written by John Paul Stevens |
| concur/dissent | written by Harry Blackmun |
| concur/dissent | written by William H. Rehnquist joined by Byron R. White, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas |
| concur/dissent | written by Antonin Scalia joined by William H. Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas |
Facts
Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982 included several provisions related to abortion, including a requirement to inform the spouse prior to the abortion.
Issues
Is the spousal awareness requirement valid?
Holding
No.
The Court upheld the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in Roe v. Wade (1973), but altered the standard for analyzing restrictions on that right, crafting the "undue burden" standard for abortion restrictions. The husband notification provision is an undue burden.Rule
A state abortion regulation that imposes an "undue burden" in restricting abortions is unconstitutional. An "undue burden" is a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
Comments
In an unusual move, the opinion was co-authored by Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David H. Souter. Of this opinion, parts I, II, III, V-A, V-C, and VI were joined by Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens, parts V-E were joined by Stevens, and parts IV, V-B, and V-D were joined by no other justices.
