Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Pilea, HLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

(1992)

Supreme Court of the United States - 505 U.S. 833

tl;dr:

Reaffirms Roe’s essential holding but moves to undue burden/substantial obstacle framework pre-viability

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Planned Parenthood v. Casey

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingPlanned Parenthood v. Casey case brief facts & holding

Facts:A Pennsylvania law placed various limits on the availability of...

Holding:Court reaffirms the holding of Roe v. Wade.Constitutional protection of...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Planned Parenthood v. Casey | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice O’Connor, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Sou-ter
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court upheld a woman's right to choose to have an abortion before viability without undue interference from the State, while recognizing the State's legitimate interests in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus. The State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking an abortion, but unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right. The Court upheld the State's right to regulate and prohibit abortion after viability, except where it is necessary for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. The Court defined medical emergency as a condition that necessitates immediate abortion to avert the mother's death or for which a delay will create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. The Court also upheld the 24-hour waiting period between informed consent and abortion as a reasonable measure to implement the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn, with exceptions in the case of a medical emergency, and does not amount to an undue burden. The physician's First Amendment rights not to speak are implicated but only as part of the practice of medicine, subject to reasonable licensing and regulation by the State. The case establishes that state regulation of a woman's pregnancy requires greater scrutiny and a spousal notice requirement is unconstitutional as it can give the husband an effective veto over his wife's decision. The court held that a parental consent requirement for minors seeking abortions is valid as long as it requires informed parental consent and there is an adequate judicial bypass procedure. Recordkeeping and reporting provisions that respect a patient's confidentiality and privacy are permissible. However, unnecessary health regulations that present a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking an abortion impose an undue burden on the right. A spousal notice requirement is unconstitutional as it can give the husband an effective veto over his wife's decision.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: Justice Stevens
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case discusses the significance of the doctrine of stare decisis in the context of Roe v. Wade. The Court's analysis reaffirms the importance of upholding Roe's explanation of why the State must prioritize protecting the life or health of the mother over the unborn. The State's argument that the fetus is a "person" within the Fourteenth Amendment was rejected by the Court. The author disagrees with the joint opinion's interpretation of the trimester framework established in Roe and argues that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is protected by the Constitution. The State's interest in potential human life is not based on the Constitution, but rather on humanitarian and pragmatic concerns.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: Justice Blackmun
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Court affirms a woman's right to reproductive choice and establishes a strict scrutiny standard for evaluating abortion regulations. State restrictions on abortion violate a woman's right to privacy and bodily integrity. The Pennsylvania statute's provisions requiring content-based counseling, a 24-hour delay, informed parental consent, and reporting of abortion-related information are unconstitutional. The Court recognizes a woman's right to choose and the state's interests in preserving the health of the pregnant woman and protecting potential life. Informed consent requirements must genuinely further health concerns without influencing a woman's choice. The Act's requirements for women to be advised of medical assistance benefits and for fathers to provide financial support for the child are unconstitutional attempts to discourage abortion. The mandatory 24-hour waiting period following the provision of information is arbitrary and serves no legitimate state interest. The requirement of an in-person visit by a parent or guardian to obtain informed consent for an unemancipated minor or an incompetent woman carries the risk of a delay of several days or weeks. The Pennsylvania statute requiring all facilities performing abortions to report their activities to the Commonwealth cannot justify a significant burden on a woman's right to obtain an abortion. The undue burden test is criticized for not providing sufficient safeguards for battered women and those who become pregnant through rape or incest. Fundamental liberties, such as a woman's right to reproductive choice, should not be subject to the whims of an election and need not rely on the democratic process for protection.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: ChieF Justice Rehnquist
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The Supreme Court upheld most of Pennsylvania's abortion regulations, adopting the "undue burden" standard to analyze the challenged regulations. The Court recognized a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy falls under the "guarantee of personal privacy," but believes that the right to abortion is different from other rights protected under personal or family privacy and autonomy. The Court concluded that Roe was wrong in failing to recognize the State's interests in maternal health and the protection of unborn human life throughout pregnancy. The Court of Appeals struggled to determine the appropriate standard of review for abortion regulations due to conflicting Supreme Court decisions. The legal case supported a state's mandate that physicians provide informed consent to women seeking an abortion, which includes details on the procedure's nature, risks, and alternatives. The legal case also upheld the state's requirement for physicians or counselors to disclose information about paternal child support and state-funded alternatives if a woman decides to continue her pregnancy. Additionally, the legal case supported a state's mandatory waiting period of 24 hours for abortions and mandates that an unemancipated woman below the age of 18 must seek consent from one of her parents or choose a judicial bypass procedure before obtaining an abortion. The Supreme Court has upheld Pennsylvania's parental consent and spousal notification requirements for abortion, finding that they further legitimate state interests. The Court has also upheld the Act's reporting requirements on abortion facilities, which must file reports on each abortion performed, as they serve the State's legitimate interests. The legal case involves a challenge to the medical emergency exception provided by the Act, which the Court of Appeals has found encompasses three dangerous conditions that pregnant women can suffer from and requires an immediate abortion to avoid serious injury or death.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Opinion (Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part), author: Justice Scalia
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The author of this legal case agrees and disagrees with the decision on abortion, stating that states have the option to allow or prohibit it as it is not required by the Constitution. The author criticizes the methodology used in Roe v. Wade and argues that acknowledging and correcting plain error is necessary for maintaining the Court's legitimacy. The author also criticizes the joint opinion's definition of "undue burden" and its fact-intensive analysis, which lacks clear guidance and is subject to being reversed. The joint opinion's willingness to place all constitutional rights at risk to preserve the "central holding in Roe" is concerning, and it permits the state to pursue its interest in potential human life only so long as it is not too successful.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Chat for Planned Parenthood v. Casey
brief-815
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.