| Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 2, 2016 Decided June 27, 2016 | |
| Full case name | Whole Woman's Health; Austin Women's Health Center; Killeen Women's Health Center; Nova Health Systems d/b/a Reproductive Services; Sherwood C. Lynn, Jr., M.D.; Pamela J. Richter, D.O.; and Lendol L. Davis, M.D., on behalf of themselves and their patients, petitioners v. John Hellerstedt, M.D., Commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services; Mari Robinson, Executive Director of the Texas Medical Board, in their official capacities |
| Docket no. | 15-274 |
| Citations | 579 U.S. 582 (more) 136 S. Ct. 2292; 195 L. Ed. 2d 665 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Injunction granted, 46 F. Supp. 3d 673, (W.D. Tex. 2014), staying injunction, 769 F.3d 285 (5th Cir.), vacated in part, 135 S. Ct. 399 (2014), aff’d in part, vacated in part, rev’d in part, 790 F.3d 563 (5th Cir.), mandate stayed pending judgment 135 S. Ct. 2923 (2015), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 499 (2015). |
| Holding | |
| Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Breyer, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Ginsburg |
| Dissent | Thomas |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV Texas House Bill 2 | |
Superseded by | |
| Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) | |
Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016), was a landmark decision[1] of the US Supreme Court announced on June 27, 2016. The Court ruled 5–3 that Texas cannot place restrictions on the delivery of abortion services that create an undue burden for women seeking an abortion. On June 28, 2016, the Supreme Court refused to hear challenges from Wisconsin and Mississippi where federal appeals courts had enjoined the enforcement of similar laws.
The decision in Hellerstedt was overruled when the Supreme Court repudiated Roe v. Wade and the court-created right to abortion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
- ^ Jane S. Schacter (William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Stanford Law School) (June 27, 2016). "SCOTUS Whole Woman's Health Decision: Casey Endures". Stanford Law School. Archived from the original on May 23, 2023. Retrieved May 23, 2023.
In a landmark opinion, Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court weighed in and took some important steps toward better aligning its decisions ("the law on the books") with the reality of what is going on in the country ("law in action"). [...] Justice Breyer's opinion for a 5-justice majority in Whole Women's Health is an explicit course correction. The forgiving rational basis test, the Court said, has no role in Casey's undue burden inquiry. To opponents of abortion who had found support for that deferential approach in Gonzales v. Carhart, the Supreme Court's 2007 decision upholding the federal ban on "partial birth" abortion, the Court said: such a conclusion misreads Gonzales. Further, states like Texas that say they are regulating abortion to protect women's health must be able to point to actual health benefits for women, and courts should independently assess this evidence—and not simply accept unsupported assertions—as part of the undue burden inquiry.