Civil and Human Rights

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court is considering the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on abortions after fifteen weeks of pregnancy.

Case Summary

In 2018, Jackson Women’s Health Organization challenged the constitutionality of Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which prohibits nearly all abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions for fetal abnormalities and medical emergencies.  Both the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the law was unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s precedents in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, both of which recognized the constitutional right to pre-viability abortion.

Mississippi then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, urging the Court to sustain its law.  In 2021, the Court agreed to hear the case, and on June 22, 2021, Mississippi filed its merits brief urging the Court to overrule Roe and Casey.  On September 20, 2021, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

Our brief contends that the Mississippi abortion ban is unconstitutional and that the Court should reaffirm Roe and Casey.  Significantly, if the Court were to overturn Roe and Casey, it would rob millions of Americans of the basic fundamental rights to control their bodies, choose whether and when to start a family, determine their life course, and participate as equals in American life.

To start, our brief demonstrates that the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment protect personal individual rights essential to liberty, dignity, and autonomy.  Against the backdrop of the suppression of rights in the South, the Framers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to provide broad protections for substantive liberty—not limited to rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution—to secure equal citizenship stature for all people.  Throughout the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Framers of the Amendment made clear that the Amendment was understood to protect basic personal rights, including the right to enjoy bodily integrity and to make decisions whether to marry, bear and raise children, and start a family.

Our brief also refutes some of Mississippi’s flawed arguments for overruling Roe and Casey.  For example, Mississippi claims that the Constitution’s text does not mention abortion and therefore gives the State authority to regulate pre-viability abortions.  Our brief emphatically counters this argument by pointing out that the Constitution is equally silent on many of the other fundamental rights that are not only deeply rooted in the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also have been recognized by the Supreme Court.  Mississippi also suggests that because many states at the time of ratification restricted abortion, the public would have understood such regulations to be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment.  But, as our brief explains, the Court has never accepted state practices at the time of ratification as a definitive measure of what fundamental rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment.

Finally, our brief urges the Court to reaffirm Roe and Casey’s viability line.  The brief makes clear that no other line does a better job of both protecting the individual’s right to abortion while accommodating the interests of the government, and Mississippi offers no workable alternative to that line.

Case Timeline

  • September 20, 2021

    CAC files amicus curiae brief

    Sup. Ct. Amicus Br.
  • December 1, 2021

    The Supreme Court hears oral argument

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Burrell v. Lackawanna Recycling Center, Inc.

In Burrell v. Lackawanna Recycling Center, Inc., the Third Circuit is considering whether the practice of forcing child-support debtors to work in horrific conditions in the county recycling center for almost no pay constitutes involuntary...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Virginia v. Ferriero

In Virginia v. Ferriero, the D.C Circuit is considering whether a lawsuit seeking to compel the National Archivist to certify the Equal Rights Amendment may move forward
Civil and Human Rights
December 15, 2021

Supreme Court’s conservatives on the verge of ending right to abortion

Los Angeles Times
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is ending the year starkly split on abortion, with the five conservatives...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, David G. Savage
Civil and Human Rights
December 7, 2021

PODCAST: Elizabeth Wydra on Signal Boost

Signal Boost
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra joines Jess and Zerlina on the show to talk...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Zerlina Maxwell, Jess McIntosh
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2021

Decisions on same-sex marriage, contraception could be threatened by abortion ruling

USA Today
WASHINGTON – When the Supreme Court hands down its ruling next year in Mississippi's blockbuster...
Civil and Human Rights
December 10, 2021

RELEASE: Supreme Court Ruling Undermines Constitution by Allowing Texas to Continue Violating Right to Abortion While Permitting Limited Court Challenge 

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court today issued rulings in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra