Case Citator › Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
597 U.S. 215
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
194 of 194
Citing cases (total)
481
Treatment dates
2023
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization is criticized; all 194 flagged citations have been read. The 1 confirmed adverse treatment is listed below.
Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

481 later cases cite Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization; 194 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 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization?

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

Criticized

  • The court criticized the Supreme Court's stare-decisis approach in Dobbs as “seemingly cavalier,” while acknowledging that lower courts remain bound by controlling precedent.

    Whitman v. Keys · E.D. Washington · filed

    Although the United States Supreme Court has recently adopted a seemingly cavalier approach to stare decisis,1 this Court is bound to follow controlling Supreme Court precedent until it is explicitly overruled by that Court. Nunez-Reyes v. Holder, 646 F.3d 684, 692 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). Based on the reasoning of Jones v. Hendrix, __ U.S. __, 143 S.Ct. 1857 (2023), this Court no longer has jurisdiction to hear Mr. Whitman’s 2241 Petition. 1 See, e.g., Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., __ U.S. __, 142 S. Ct. 2228, 2319-20, 213 L.Ed.2d 545 (2022) (Breyer, J., Sotomayor, J., and Kagan, J., dissenting) (criticizing the majority’s “cavalier approach” to stare decisis and arguing that “the Court reverses course today for one reason and one reason only: because the composition of this Court has changed”).
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization 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