June 24, 2022

The Overturning of Roe v. Wade

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all OnPractice content.
Register Now

June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs), overturning Roe v. Wade (Roe) and upending 50 years of precedent protecting a woman's right to privacy in choosing to abort a pregnancy prior to the point of viability. In Dobbs, the Court held that "[t]he Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and [Planned Parenthood v. Casey (Casey)] [] are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives."

Consistent with the draft majority opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito that was leaked to Politico in early May, the Court overruled Roe and Casey and held that there is no federal constitutional right to obtain an abortion and that abortion restrictions are subject to rational basis review. This decision leaves individual states free to prohibit and criminalize abortion altogether. Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice John Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

The state statute at issue in Dobbs, Mississippi's Gestational Age Act, provides that "[e]xcept in a medical emergency or in the case of a severe fetal abnormality, a person shall not intentionally or knowingly perform . . . or induce an abortion of an unborn human being if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being has been determined to be greater than fifteen (15) weeks." Jackson Women's Health Organization and one of its physicians (the Respondents) challenged the Mississippi law in the US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging that it violated precedents establishing a constitutional right to abortion, including Roe and Casey. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Respondents and permanently enjoined enforcement of the law, reasoning that Mississippi's 15-week restriction on abortion violated Roe and Casey, which forbid states to ban abortion pre-viability. The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, after which the case was appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the Mississippi statute at issue is constitutional, Roe and Casey were wrongly decided and that the law is constitutional because it satisfies rational-basis review.

What's Next
As noted in our recent article, the effect of this decision on US companies cannot be understated. Any organization whose operations touch family planning services in any way (e.g., providers, those that facilitate provider activities, investors, payors, employers that provide family planning benefits and health plan service providers) should immediately examine their precise services, geographic footprint, corporate structure and organizational priorities. This includes not only those providers who furnish pregnancy termination services, but also those that provide advice, operational support or other assistance to providers. Employers, insurers and other health plan service providers that cover or provide access to abortion services or benefits should also immediately evaluate their operations and the potential risks of offering such coverage or access in certain states.

There is a wide variety of state "trigger" and "zombie" laws that arguably took effect today. For those states that require state attorney general or other administrative action, abortion bans will likely be in place within the next two weeks.

Companies that have not already put in place a plan to address post-Roe restrictions on abortions in states where abortion is now banned or significantly restricted should consult with counsel immediately to determine if it is necessary for them to adjust any reproductive health-related services that may result in an abortion or the destruction of an embryo until the full effect of state restrictions on abortions can be carefully evaluated. This strategy should take into account laws that have now taken effect that prohibit and criminalize abortion services. The obvious exception to this advice is with respect to abortions furnished to save the life or otherwise prevent significant harm to a patient.

We will continue to closely monitor the impacts of this decision and provide updates.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

On the Road Again: Alternative Designs May Impact Trade Dress Functionality Analysis

By Kavya Rallabhandi McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded a summary judgment ruling, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s alleged trade dress was functional and therefore excluded from trade dress protection.

Elevate the $: Geographic Isolation Helps Defeat Trademark Infringement Claim

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

In a case between similarly named banks, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed expert disclosure requirements, conducted a de novo likelihood of confusion analysis and ultimately upheld a finding of no trademark infringement.

First Circuit: Claim Preclusion Shouldn't Apply to Bar Claims Under VARA

By Hannah Cohen McDermott Will & Emery May 25 , 2023

Addressing for the first time whether federal res judicata law recognizes the alternative determinations doctrine, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit determined that a plaintiff’s claims under the Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) were not precluded by a previous action in which she brought a federal copyright claim against the defendant.

More From Health Care Law

SCOTUS to Warhol Foundation: Your Use of Previously Licensed Work Isn't Fair

By Steven J. Wadyka Jr. Greenberg Traurig May 26 , 2023

On May 18, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, a case that presented the Court with an opportunity to bring clarity to the often highly subjective standards lower courts apply when deciding the issue of fair use of visual works of art under copyright law.

Supreme Court Issues Decision Sharply Limiting Clean Water Act Jurisdiction over Wetlands

By Bernadette M. Rappold Greenberg Traurig May 26 , 2023

Sometimes the most monumental Supreme Court decisions spring from the most modest facts.

The New York Court of Appeals: A Triumph of Merit Selection

By Henry M. Greenberg Greenberg Traurig May 25 , 2023

The current court is a triumph of the merit selection process that New Yorkers voted for in 1977.

Featured Stories