Understanding How Supreme Court Judges Overturn Precedents: A Case Study of Dobbs and Roe
When judges in the United States Supreme Court make decisions that overturn long-standing precedents, it can seem like an extraordinary and somewhatysterious process. This article aims to clarify the circumstances and methods under which such decisions are made, using the landmark cases of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) and Roe v. Wade (1973) as our primary examples. We'll explore the legal framework and the reasons behind these pivotal decisions.
Legal Framework for Overturning Precedents
The United States Supreme Court has the power to overturn its own past decisions through a process known as 'overruling' or 'Pierce v. Society of Sisters'. However, this power is not exercised lightly. Overruling a precedent requires a compelling justification, often involving significant changes in societal values, advances in legal reasoning, or fundamental shifts in constitutional interpretation.
Case Selection: The primary mechanism through which the Supreme Court reviews cases is through the issuance of a writ of certiorari. This is an extraordinary prerogative writ granted in cases that would otherwise not be entitled to judicial review. The Court, which receives over 7,000 petitions for review annually, requires a minimum of four justices to grant a writ, effectively allowing the court to review a case.
Key to the Supreme Court's decision-making process is the consideration of whether a case presents a significant and unresolved issue of law. The court also seeks to create a uniform legal landscape by ensuring that different interpretations of the same legal question do not persist across lower courts. For these reasons, many cases that reach the Supreme Court are those that have seen conflicting rulings in state supreme courts.
The Dobbs Case and its Precedents
The Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) case is a prime example of the Supreme Court's ability to overturn landmark precedents. The decision in Dobbs effectively struck down Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that had guaranteed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. However, the court's decision to overrule Roe was not an arbitrary act.
According to Associate Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion, the originalism approach to the Constitution is the guiding principle. This approach suggests that only those rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (or reasonably implied from them) are available to Americans. In his view, the right to an abortion was neither stated nor implied in the Constitution, and thus, Roe was wrongly decided.
The court's decision to breathe new life into state sovereignty is rooted in a belief that these issues are better left to democratic processes. The decision has significant implications, especially in light of other precedents like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which established protections for marriage equality, education, and reproductive rights, respectively. With Roe gone, these rights may also be reconsidered under the originalism framework.
Respect for Precedent vs. Overruling
While Roe v. Wade remains a controversial decision, the Supreme Court does not overrule precedents lightly or without justification. Historically, the court has only overruled precedents if the prior decisions were so fundamentally flawed that they could no longer be reconciled with contemporary legal understandings.
Historical Examples: Notable examples of overruling precedents include Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), and Fgrass v. Sanderson (1973), which suggested that a state could not provide all public schooling within a local district, and this was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.
Each overruling of a precedent, like the overturning of Roe v. Wade, marks a shift in societal values and legal interpretations. The court's decision to heed these changes is a testament to its role as the guardian of the Constitution in an ever-evolving society.
Conclusion: The Supreme Court's decision to overrule Roe v. Wade in favor of state sovereignty is a response to the originalist interpretation of the Constitution. While the decision to overrule Roe remains a point of controversy, it is one that aligns with the long-standing tradition of the court's role as a protector of individual rights.
The takeaway from the Dobbs case is that the Supreme Court is not a rubber stamp but a line of defense for constitutional rights, capable of overruling its own precedents under specific and compelling circumstances.