505 U.S. 833 (1992) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey is one of the most consequential decisions in U.S.
Do Pennsylvania's abortion regulations violate the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing an undue burden on a woman's pre-viability right to choose abortion, and should Roe v. Wade be reaffirmed or overruled?
The Constitution protects a woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion prior to fetal viability without undue interference from the State. The State may regulate abortion from the outset of pregnancy to further its legitimate interests in protecting the health of the woman and the potentiality of human life, but pre-viability regulations are unconstitutional if they have the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion (the "undue burden" standard). After viability, the State may restrict or proscribe abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. In assessing whether a provision imposes an undue burden, courts consider whether the obstacle affects a large fraction of those for whom the law is relevant, and whether the law's purpose or effect is to hinder rather than merely inform or regulate.
The Court reaffirmed the essential holding of Roe v. Wade but abandoned the trimester framework in favor of the undue burden standard. Applying that standard, the Court held: (1) informed consent and the 24-hour waiting period are constitutional; (2) the parental consent requirement with a judicial bypass is constitutional; (3) the spousal notification requirement is unconstitutional because it imposes an undue burden on a large fraction of affected women; and (4) the reporting and recordkeeping requirements, as construed, are constitutional. The judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
For three decades, Casey defined the constitutional landscape of abortion regulation. It is central to understanding substantive due process, the mechanics of stare decisis, and how courts evaluate the balance between individual liberty and state interests. The undue burden standard guided later cases, including Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), which emphasized weighing benefits against burdens, and June Medical Services v. Russo (2020). In 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overruled Roe and Casey, holding the Constitution confers no federal right to abortion. Even so, Casey remains a foundational case for law students: it illustrates how the Court preserves precedent's core while revising doctrine, articulates a nuanced test for rights-limiting regulations, and provides a rich framework for analyzing reliance and institutional legitimacy.