The Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture publication

Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Center is a masterful account of why Roe v. Wade was wrong from the start and why it should be jettisoned. For liberals shocked by the prospective ruling, and for conservatives who thought it might never happen, it’s worth taking a look at Alito’s clear reasoning.

Above all, the superb quality of the draft is compelling evidence that it is genuine.

If Senate Republicans assess Ketanji Brown Jackson on the basis of judicial philosophy, and don’t succumb to political pressure because of her race and sex, they will responsibly fulfill their constitutional duty to advise and consent.

In this exclusive Q&A, Ed Whelan, who directs EPPC’s program on the Constitution, the Courts, and the Culture, discusses the effort to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.

EPPC Distinguished Senior Fellow Ed Whelan offers his initial impressions of oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

The Chief Justice has a chance to protect the Supreme Court, strike a blow for democracy, and overturn bad decisions.

The justices who dissented from the Supreme Court’s denial of the abortion providers’ request for emergency relief against the Texas Heartbeat Act might think that they have a path to winning a majority in the DOJ case against the law. But the path is steep and deceptively treacherous.

There are (at least) six justices on the Court who ought to recognize in the pending case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the originalist case against Roe is overwhelming. It is neither sound in principle nor helpful in practice to try to persuade those justices that they may overrule Roe only if they make a moral argument against abortion.

There is plenty of room for methodological disputes within originalism, but a recent critique of the dominant originalism is unpersuasive.

Last night the Supreme Court denied abortion providers’ beyond–audacious request for emergency relief against the Texas Heartbeat Act by a 5–4 vote. The feebleness of the four dissents shows that the denial should have been 9–0.

For Chief Justice Roberts and other proponents of judicial restraint, stare decisis considerations should be especially weak when—as with Roe and Casey—the precedent under examination has usurped the democratic processes.

For anyone trying to understand how Chief Justice Roberts’s jurisprudential principles apply to the question whether he should vote to overrule Roe and Casey, the Chief’s concurring opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) is essential reading.