The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Grateful For A Long-Overdue Debate on Dobbs, Originalism, and Stare Decisis
There has been a surprising quiet about one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases in a generation.
I am grateful that my posts on Dobbs have led to responses by Steve and Orin. Frankly, I've been surprised at how little interest this case has generated. There have been far more writings about the arcane FedCourts issues with S.B. 8, but almost zero writing about the substantive issue of abortion. If Dobbs overruled Roe, then S.B. 8 becomes irrelevant. I think Dobbs may be one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in a generation. But at least in academic circles, there has been silence. Indeed, as best as I can recall, there were zero panels at the Federalist Society Convention about Dobbs, and I don't know that were anything more than passing reference to the case during discussions. But in the hallways of the Mayflower, Dobbs was a topic of frequent concern. I think there is a disconnect between the rank-and-file and what Steve called "Originalism Inc."
Once again, my posts have shifted the terms of debate. Or more precisely, my posts have started a debate that was not happening, but should have been happening. I think my writings often served this purpose during the Trump impeachments. And for that end, I am truly grateful.
I'll have much more to say about the specifics of this debate in due time.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The Sage Of South Texas, national thought leader . . . or disaffected culture war casualty whining from modern America's obsolete fringe?
I enjoy Josh's posts, but gosh I hope a lot of this was tongue-in-cheek. It's sometimes hard for me to tell - not just with Josh but on the internet in general.
“ Once again, my posts have shifted the terms of debate. Or more precisely, my posts have started a debate that was not happening, but should have been happening. I think my writings often served this purpose during the Trump impeachments. And for that end, I am truly grateful.”
Don’t you know it’s gross to masturbate in public, Josh? What a revoltingly self-important thing to say. Your posts only change the terms of the debate because you make the tendentious, partisan, and hackish arguments that other right-wingers would be too embarrassed to make.
*watches more serious scholars brutally dunk on how tendentious, partisan, and hackish my arguments are* I have shifted the terms of the debate
Professor Josh Blackman is the future of American legal academia.
I am content.
::chef's kiss::
Dobbs - the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in a generation!
Nah. NYSRA vs Breun will define the 2nd amendment and have more lasting consequences.
The COVID shadow docket, CDC smackdown, imminent OSGA smackdown, will also have more lasting consequences. Conservatives have been virtue signaling about Roe for decades. The real meat though is in administrative law. At bottom, even if Roe is overturned, women will just get bussed to CA for abortions.
If states can ban abortion, they may be able to ban taking a fetus out of state for an abortion (without intent to take up residence in the new state). Enforcing such a law is another matter. One could imagine a conservative Congress allowing or requiring doctors to report pregnancies to state authorities.
S.B.8 is not irrelevant if abortion is not a protected right. It is still a bad law due to the measures designed to make the civil suits punitive in nature while evading review. It would still be a bad law even in a noble cause like banning reality television.
How do these suits evade judicial review?
JUDICIAL REVIEW EVASION - HUH ?
What about the 14 pre-enforcement challenges in state courts. Numerous TROs were granted ASAP, at least one temporary injunction is currently in effect, and there were already excursions to the Texas Multi-District Litigation Panel (No. 21-0782)(for consolidated pre-trial handling) and the Texas Supreme Court (Tex. No. 21-0844)(mandamus).
On Nov. 10, 2021, assigned retired Judge David Peeples held a Zoom hearing that lasted many hours on:
- Motions for Summary Judgment by abortionists & friends
- Motion to Dismiss by Texas Right to Life at al under the Texas Citizen Participation Act (anti-SLAPP)
- Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Plea to the Jurisdiction in Texas state-court quirk lingo).
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/11/10/texas-abortion-law-state-court/
Appeals may soon follow, whether from final SJ, dismissal, or denial of motion to dismss under the TCPA (or some mix thereof in different cases).
So, lots of judicial scrutiny going on, rather than evasion. And that's not even including the three SB8 would-be test cases that are subject to freeze if the Pitman anti-suit injunction gets revived.
And how are those two federal pre-enforcement endeavors evading judicial review when they are already before the SCOTUS
on a ueber-expedited basis with accompanying requests for special ad-hocratic super-precedent formulation?
Modesty Professor, in all things Modesty
Your posts and the posts from Steve and Orin are all a good dialogue. Here's my contribution. I agree with the gist of Roberts famous "balls and strikes" analogy. The problem is that the proponents of stare decisis (of, which I am one) who argue for upholding Roe/Casey (which I do not), is they fail to recognize how skewed the Roe strike zone is. Roe shrunk the strike zone to the eye of a needle - no baseball (law/regulation) can fit through it. As Josh noted, even smoke detectors pose and undue burden and the law cannot be enforced.
It is time to restore the abortion strike zone to the same constitutional dimensions as every other law.
Once again, my posts have shifted the terms of debate. Or more precisely, my posts have started a debate that was not happening, but should have been happening.
I can refer you to a good physical therapist to treat the shoulder injury you suffered patting yourself on the back.
I can also refer you to other good therapists for other issues.
This from the guy who publishes bad grammar.
SB8 presents novel questions about how states frame laws that implicate rights and who has standing to challenge them in court. Thus lots of discussion. Dobbs rehashes the same question that we have been discussing for almost 50 years. Many of the relevant arguments have been discussed ad naseum. To me this explains a lot of the difference in discussion between the two cases, regardless of which is likely to be more consequential.
Josh, it's not your posts themselves which have started new debates, and shifted older debates, and changed the way Americans think about deep questions of ethics, law, the Constitution, our national identity, and patriotism. It's the comments on your posts, left here by your brilliant readers.
Like me.
Wait, which was was it?
-'No one was talking about Dobbs at FedSoc'
-'If SCOTUS doesn't overturn Roe in Dobbs, FedSoc is dead'
I can't believe both of these can be true at the same time. If Dobbs is that consequential to FedSoc specifically, why aren't they talking about it? Maybe there aren't as many FedSoc members as you think whose defining legal issue is abortion.
Blogger self-regard, the recursive drug that never stops giving.
Unless the court rewrites how "due process" and penumbral rights are interpreted, or turns fetuses into legal persons, it will not be all that consequential. Although there are many people who could state an opinion if asked, abortion is of high importance to a much smaller group. Look at how many, or rather how few, Americans have been talking about abortion in Europe and Latin America the past several decades. I see hundreds of people spouting opinions on Brexit or reporting on it for every one who discusses movements to liberalize abortion outside the USA.
European Convention on Human Rights & Member State Abortion Laws
There is an amicus by European Law scholars in Dobbs. The gist:
The case law of the European Court with respect to
the compatibility with the human rights protected by
the Convention of national laws regulating and
restricting abortion can be summarized as follows:
1. Member States may protect human life before
birth through national law. The European Court has
identified several rights and interests justifying such
laws. These include protecting the right to life of the
unborn, the legitimate interest of society in limiting
the number of abortions, and the interests of society to
protect morals.
2. The European Court has held that the
Convention does not confer a right to abortion.
3. The compatibility with the Convention of
Member States’ laws on abortion is primarily assessed
by reference to Article 2 (“Right to life”) and Article 8
(“Right to respect for private and family life”) of the
Convention.
4. The European Court has not determined
whether the unborn child is a person for the purposes
of Article 2 of the Convention. The European Court
has not interpreted Article 2 as prohibiting States
from making abortion legal; it instead interprets
Article 2 as allowing States a margin of appreciation
to determine the starting point of the right to life in
their domestic law.
5. Legislation regulating the termination of
pregnancy touches upon the sphere of a woman’s
private life and thus may come within the scope of
Article 8. But the European Court has also
consistently recognized that Member States have a
wide margin of appreciation under the Convention
with respect to the regulation of abortion.
6. Consistent with the foregoing, the European
Court has recognized as compatible with a Member
State’s obligations under the Convention even very
restrictive abortion laws, including a national law
prohibiting abortion at all stages of pregnancy and for
any reason other than where there was a risk to the
life (including by way of suicide) of the expectant
mother.
7. While acknowledging that it is the task of an
individual Member State to frame its own abortion
law, the European Court has found that it follows from
its responsibility under Article 19 of the Convention to
supervise whether any such law constitutes a
proportionate balancing of the competing interests
involved.
8. The European Court has not relied upon any
concept of the viability of the “foetus” as a basis for
assessing the compatibility of Member States’
abortion laws with the Convention.
9. In several cases, the European Court has found
that Member States have violated the Article 8 rights
of claimants seeking to access abortion services
permitted under national law as a result of
deficiencies in the way the national law has been given
effect. These have included deficiencies in the
arrangements for conscientious objection by
healthcare providers or deficiencies in the processes
for establishing whether the conditions under national
law for a lawful abortion have been satisfied by a
claimant in a particular case.
Jul 28 2021 Brief amici curiae of European Legal Scholars in support of neither party. SCOTUS Docket No. 19-1392
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/185153/20210728162714090_European%20Legal%20Scholars%20Amici%20Brief.pdf