Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
2,487 later cases cite Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey; 346 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled
-
The Supreme Court overruled Casey's recognition of a constitutional right to pre-viability abortion and its undue-burden framework, returning regulatory authority to the people and their elected representatives.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Declined to follow
-
The Tennessee Supreme Court rejected Casey's undue-burden test for state constitutional claims and applied strict scrutiny instead.
Planned Parenthood of Middle Tennessee v. Sundquist · Supreme Court of Tennessee · filed
Thus, the Casey test offers our judges no real guidance and engenders no expectation among the citizenry that governmental regulation of abortion will be objective, evenhanded, or well-reasoned. This Court finds no justification for exchanging the long established constitutional doctrine of strict scrutiny for a test, not yet ten years old and applicable to a single, narrow area of the law, that would relegate a fundamental right of the citizens of Tennessee to the personal caprice of an individual judge. ... Accordingly, we conclude that strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard to apply in this case.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The Ninth Circuit confined Casey's displacement of Salerno's no-set-of-circumstances rule to facial challenges to abortion statutes and declined to extend it to other contexts without further Supreme Court direction.
S.D. Myers, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco · Ninth Circuit · filed
While we have held that Casey “overruled Salerno in the context of facial challenges to abortion statutes,” Lawall, 180 F.3d at 1027, we will not reject Salerno in other contexts until a majority of the Supreme Court clearly directs us to do so.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener → -
The court declined to extend Casey's constitutional stare decisis principles to federal administrative interpretations of statutes.
Firearms Import/Export Roundtable Trade Group v. Melson · D.D.C. · filed
However, as defendants note, Dickerson and Casey say nothing about whether a federal agency is permitted to adopt a changed interpretation of a statute it is charged to administer. Rather, they dealt with the Supreme Court’s ability to overrule its own prior interpretations of the Constitution. The Court rejects this attempt to extend stare decisis principles to administrative interpretations of federal statutes.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Criticized
-
The court criticized Casey's undue-burden standard as unworkable in practice except in the most obvious cases.
Cincinnati Women's Services, Inc. v. Taft · S.D. Ohio · filed
All of the preceding is but a long way of saying that in this Court’s opinion, and as both Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia predicted, the Casey undue burden standard is unworkable in practice in all but the most obvious cases, such as Stenberg.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace