Politico Releases Purported Alito Draft Overturning Roe & Casey
This is a developing story, so the usual disclaimers apply.
Politico has released what they are calling a “first draft” of an opinion authored by Justice Alito that “Roe and Casey must be overruled.”
A person familiar with the court’s deliberations said that four of the other Republican-appointed justices – Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – had voted with Alito in the conference held among the justices after hearing oral arguments in December, and that line-up remains unchanged as of this week.
The three Democratic-appointed justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – are working on one or more dissents, according to the person. How Chief Justice John Roberts will ultimately vote, and whether he will join an already written opinion or draft his own, is unclear.
The document, labeled as a first draft of the majority opinion, includes a notation that it was circulated among the justices on Feb. 10. If the Alito draft is adopted, it would rule in favor of Mississippi in the closely watched case over that state’s attempt to ban most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.
A Supreme Court spokesperson declined to comment or make another representative of the court available to answer questions about the draft document.
POLITICO received a copy of the draft opinion from a person familiar with the court’s proceedings in the Mississippi case along with other details supporting the authenticity of the document. The draft opinion runs 98 pages, including a 31-page appendix of historical state abortion laws. The document is replete with citations to previous court decisions, books and other authorities, and includes 118 footnotes. The appearances and timing of this draft are consistent with court practice.
The disclosure of Alito’s draft majority opinion – a rare breach of Supreme Court secrecy and tradition around its deliberations – comes as all sides in the abortion debate are girding for the ruling. Speculation about the looming decision has been intense since the December oral arguments indicated a majority was inclined to support the Mississippi law.
Under longstanding court procedures, justices hold preliminary votes on cases shortly after argument and assign a member of the majority to write a draft of the court’s opinion. The draft is often amended in consultation with other justices, and in some cases the justices change their votes altogether, creating the possibility that the current alignment on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could change.
The chief justice typically assigns majority opinions when he is in the majority. When he is not, that decision is typically made by the most senior justice in the majority.
Much, much more to come, but for now read the document for yourself here:
Alito Draft
If this is accurate and I have no reason to believe it is not, the decision does more than overturn Roe. The decision is a sonic assault against substantive due process rights in general. It is telling red states that they can have open season on Griswold and Loving and whatever other piece of modernity they hated.
This is an atrocity of an opinion. I suppose there is still a question of whether the actual decision is more “moderate” considering this decision is from FebruaryReport
Considering that SCOTUS is hearing it has recently heard cases on the limits of power of the EPA you are right to be worried. There’s also the issue of what might a Republican House and Senate combo decide to do after this in dismantling the New Deal.Report
Speaking purely in terms of constitutional jurisprudence and not desired policy outcomes, substantive due process is BS, isn’t it? Why is there a substantive due process right to abortion, but not a substantive due process right to contract freely for employment at any mutually agreed-upon price? Surely the argument for the latter is stronger, given that it was a right that was widely taken for granted at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, while abortion was not?
Is there any Constitutionally-grounded basis for determining which rights are covered by substantive due process?
I get that many people might like the Supreme Court to uphold substantive due process rights that precisely encompass the set of things that they would like the government to keep its hands off and exclude all the things they want the government’s hands all over, but this doesn’t strike me as workable. Certainly we can’t please everyone in this manner.
In terms of policy outcomes, I like the government being required to keep its hands off things, including abortion. I also don’t want the socioeconomic fallout of higher birthrates skewed heavily towards the lower end of the SES scale. But the Court’s job is to uphold the law, and the Constitution above all other law, not to enforce my policy preferences.
If you want to have a group of five political appointees rewriting the Constitution at their discretion, you have to accept that those rewrites aren’t always going to be to your liking.
Also, according to Pew, opposition to contraceptives and interracial marriage is an order of magnitude lower than opposition to abortion. I think banning these would be deeply unpopular even in the deep South, and that’s assuming that Loving doesn’t stand on equal protection grounds.Report
Interracial marriage is still deeply unpopular in the deep south in the higher end of the economy (meaning rich whites who control politics) ditto contraception, and expanding women’s access to healthcare via the federal Medicare and Medicaid expansions. As it is our school tend to adhere to Abstinence only sex ed, and our pediatrician says if young girls don’t get the HPV vaccine by 9, generally its too late to prevent exposure.
All of which is to say you are seriously misreading the south.Report
He needs to argue with the CDC then.
Vaccination Recommendations
HPV vaccine is recommended for routine vaccination at age 11 or 12 years. (Vaccination can be started at age 9.)
…the CDC thinks it’s “too late” at age 27.
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/hpv/hcp/recommendations.htmlReport
He’s talking about the reality of sexual activity in girls, especially girls who are either poor or black or both, and often exploited by older boys and men. Mississippi actively chooses not to protect them.Report
3 States and DC require HPV vaccine. That means 47 do not.
Hmm… it’s the most expensive on this list and something like 4x as expensive as the average.
https://wellbeing.humboldt.edu/sites/default/files/health/PublicHealth-vaccination-pricelist.pdf
We might be waiting for generics to come out.Report
A Gallup poll found that in 2021, 93% of people in the South approved of interracial marriage. Nationally, about 5% of people say that using contraception is morally wrong, and opposition is strongest among Catholics, not evangelicals. This is compared to 50% who think abortion is morally wrong.
People might oppose legally requiring doctors to prescribe contraceptives or insurers to cover them, and they might oppose handing them out in schools, but I don’t see a lot of support for actually banning them. Do you know of any survey that shows substantial support for banning them in the South?
Tell you what: For each state that passes a law banning contraceptives or interracial marriage, even if it’s overturned by the Supreme Court, I owe you a Pepsi.Report
There is a legal history behind substantive due process and a pretty strong legal consensus in support of it starting in the 1930s or so and which didn’t start being chipped at until the 80s. Even for those who disagree with it, followed to its natural conclusion, you’d be talking about threatening nearly 100 years of precedents.
Keep in mind the court has other doctrines strongly favoring judicial modesty and restraint, that if followed, serve among other things to prevent the 5 people rewriting the constitution as they see fit scenario. One could write and, indeed there are treatises, on these concepts. Decisions turning on substantive due process are not happening in the vacuum you’re implying they are. Really it’s the apparent rejection of those principles by Alito that represent something very radical, assuming of course that this draft is the final decision.Report
you’d be talking about threatening nearly 100 years of precedents.
Which is the goal of originalism, isn’t it?Report
The goal is to get rid of the “living Constitution” idea which results in Judges as philosopher kings. I want this to be allowed/prevented, ergo the Constitution says it.
The Constitution should be more than Dilbert’s two trolls.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/2yxwX.gifReport
Like the philosopher kings who decided that interracial marriage is a right, or that the 5th really does protect against forced self-incrimination? Jerks.Report
So you’re cool with the philosopher kings and the whole living Constitution thing? How about now?
We’re about to have a major right thrown out because the current kings don’t see it in the Constitution. You must be good with this one too right?
And let’s talk about the previous set of philosopher kings.
Imho the real problem with Roe is they decided, via ass pull, that the gov still had the ability to meddle in the last three months.. so during those three months making a women subject to her fetus isn’t “slavery”.
If they’d just said that even if a fetus is human, humans aren’t allowed to enslave each other, i.e. anchored their logic to something which actually is in the Constitution, then we’d have bright lines.Report
Apparently Ben Shapiro is very upset that this was leaked. Ben Shapiro is a twerp.Report
Well, we knew this was coming. Abortion gets pushed down to the states, politicians will have to run on doing things rather than just opposing things in theory.
Presumably the GOP will discover that abortion is more popular than they thought and preventing it is way harder than expected.Report
They have polling that shows how popular it is, and have acted against that polling anyway. I suspect many are betting that they will now be able to ride the wave of having gotten rid of Roe as they begin to target other things – Virginia v. Loving, Plessy V. Ferguson. you know all those other decisions that used substantive due process to expand who has rights in the US and what rights they have.Report
Politicians are very short sighted. They also suffer from feedback problems where they mistake everyone around them wanting X with X being popular.
Plessy’s strength is where it prevents the gov from discriminating. It’s weakness is where we end up with vast efforts at social engineering.
The first is a good idea, the second suggests the red states are going to be forced to be way less segregated than the blue states. Since those later efforts have died down, does Plessy even have detractors?
Similarly is anyone arguing that interracial marriage should be prevented? This seems like an effort for Team Blue to oppose things that everyone opposes.Report
There’s at least one GOP senator who thinks it was also wrongly decided:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/republican-sen-mike-braun-says-supreme-court-should-not-have-struck-down-state-laws-banning-interracial-marriage-then-backtracks-unconvincingly.htmlReport
There is a WORLD of difference between “policy issues should generally be left in the hands of state governments whenever possible” and “there shouldn’t be interracial marriage”.Report
When interracial marriage was left in the hands of the states, many of them forbade it. If SSM were given back to the states, what do you think would happen?Report
Today? Nothing. I don’t see anyone arguing for it’s elimination.
What I see is Team Blue making Straw Man attacks. Any moment you’re going to expand even this already hysterical position and claim that the states will set up death camps.Report
Taking away substantive due process as the legal doctrine by which rights can be enumerated that aren’t already in the Constitution opens a can of worms on all sorts of things. SSM being one, interracial marriage being another. Education being a third. and on it goes. Once that’s out in public it will take a lot of work to turn it back.Report
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see a “there” there.
Is there any serious effort to undo SSM, interracial marriage, or to prevent children from being educated?
This feels like the court ruling that 1=1 isn’t a subject for the court to decide on, and you proclaiming that in the future one will no longer equal one.Report
you can’t parse this away from all the other stuff that’s going on Dark. Alito’s references to rights decided under substantive due process in the later 20th century is a reference to birth control the civil rights act, SSM and all sorts of other things. It dovetails with the SCOTUS insistence that the courts shouldn’t get into voting rights disputes etc.
You may not see these things regularly, but they are coming.Report
What is the “education” issue/right that you were referring to here?Report
Start with Brown v. Board of Education. Work your way forward through all the federal desegregation orders of the 1980’s.Report
If memory serves, currently the Blue States are more segregated than the Red States.
If we assume Blue isn’t evil or racist then we should also assume that Red isn’t for doing less.
We have problems with lack of education in some communities. Mostly it seems beyond the ability/scope of the law or even the government to fix.
We’ve decided that the government isn’t allowed to segregate. However people are allowed to move with their feet and will often choose to be with their own class/culture.Report
You must not recall how many people found Kim Davis heroic.Report
The outcome of that case (ignoring that Kim had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket) is the Clerk doesn’t have to put her own name of those licenses, and Kim is now willing to issue them.
And that’s probably the most extreme nit-wit that we have for examples. Trying to spin that into she’s popular enough that gay marriage is threatened is a straw man reach.Report
Right, it’s not like SCOTUS “imposing” SSM is one of the most popular MAGA grievances.
Nor is it like Obergefell is exactly the kind if “living Constitution” decision you just criticized, passed by a majority that’s gone for good.Report
And your point is what? That you like the outcome ergo it must be a great thing for SCOTUS to have done this?
Some of the states had already allowed SSM and with the dam broken, SCOTUS beat the rush but not by much. The underlying reality is that SSM was being more and more where society was moving and has moved.
None of which changes that “a living Constitution” is nonsense on the face of it. It’s a way to make end runs around Congress which is bad for both Congress and SCOTUS.Report
My point is that SCOTUS can easily put SSM in red states at risk. Also, that if it was an end run around Congress (really, state legislators), so was Loving.Report
To see the future of SSM, look at the incredible explosion of trans-hate ignited by the imaginary “Grooming” issue.
A year ago, even people who seemed outwardly ambivalent or even benign towards trans people are now frothing in hysterical rage at school board meetings.Report
What does “at risk” mean here? Are there any serious politicians or States talking about rolling SSM back like they’re always talking about rolling back abortion?Report
At risk means 3 of the original noes are still on the Court, joined by 3 more who would have been noes, now with a manifesto about not respecting precedents.Report
So in other words, if the Supremes handed SSM back to the states you don’t know of any that would ban it?
If that’s what you’re saying, then that’s why I think we don’t have a problem.Report
Texas, North Carolina, Kentucky, Mississippi, all possibilities. Really, any place that a socially conservative GOP has a stranglehold on the state government.Report
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2019/08/23/appeals-court-kentucky-must-pay-legal-fees-rowan-county-clerk-kim-davis-same-sex-suit/2096411001/Report
Sigh. The GOP gov had very much tried to dump all of those charges on her personally.Report
But they did not succeed?
I’m surprised there was no right-wing group funding her, a la Paula Jones.Report
Almost like the professional GOP doesn’t really want to touch this issue nor to have low level minions decide policy based on god.Report
Abortion isn’t that popular, is it? It’s popular enough that it would pass by a healthy margin in a national referendum (55-45, maybe as high as 60-40), but there’s regional variation, so it’s not so popular that it would win a referendum in every state.Report
Not sure how we mechanically get a “national referendum”.
Further one of the big ideas behind the US is what’s good for urban California might not be good for rural hicksburg.Report
We don’t. I just said that as a hypothetical to acknowledge that there’s a majority in support at the national level. Rereading your comment above, I realize that you we’re talking about the national GOP, not the GOP in states inclined to ban or limit abortion. Yes, I do see how this could blow back in swing districts and states.Report
Oh, I think it’s going to blow up all over the place. Making people vote on Pro-Choice (as opposed to being in favor of it and not voting on it) has no upside for the GOP.
That’s before women dying and ending up in the news, and needing to have abortion police investigate miscarriages.
We’re going to see laws passed that people aren’t willing to obey. Then we’ll see the legal machinery try to enforce those laws and it will get icky.Report
One is free to not have an abortion anywhere in this country.Report
Also not to engage in SSM, no matter what the tax benefits are.Report
Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=afdf46723eda
From the Forbes article:
Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.
Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.
They wouldn’t dare do that, would they?
NARRATOR: They would, in fact, do just that.Report
Your own link says they’d need 60 votes and they wouldn’t even get all of the GOP.Report
Not this term.
But it’s very much what they want and will work tirelessly to get by hook or crook.Report
One of Obama’s campaign promises was to codify abortion rights. He had a super majority in congress and punted.
This is what happens when your political calculus involves leaving things up to the courts. Thanks, Obama!
On the bright side for Dems, this will likely help prevent a red avalanche in the midterms. So there’s that, although this would have been better for them if the leak happened in September.
Regardless, I’d like to amend my 2022 predictions from the other week…Report
I don’t see how a federal codification helps here. If the majority of the Court agrees that abortion is a state issue, I don’t see why they would hesitate to strike down a federal law. Roberts does tend towards letting Congress set its own boundaries, but I don’t think he’s needed for a majority here.Report
Shelby County was an example of Roberts not letting Congress set its own boundaries, even on an overwhelming vote.Report
In what other situations is it Constitutional to assume guilt on a grandchild because of the actions of his grandfather? Just because Congress is cool with that kind of nonsense doesn’t make it even slightly just. And btw Congress was able to trivially rewrite it so it doesn’t do that.Report
The former Confederate states are shining examples of what happens. The Civil War ended 160 years ago and they’re still playing shenanigans with voting laws.Report
No one was assuming guilt. States that had offended in the past got extra scrutiny, which is common sense.Report
Subtract the whole “grandfathers” thing and use some metric, and we find there are a number of Blue states that should also be on the naughty list.
We also find some of the Red states have gotten better and shouldn’t be on the list.
Further I don’t know what you call it other than “assumed guilt” when you need to go to the law and ask for permission to do things that normal states can just do.Report
So SCOTUS applied the standard principle where if the police have incorrect priorities, no laws can be enforced. Defund the police!Report
I don’t know if you know this, but states that had failed to violate the law for a certain period of time _were_ removed from the list.
It’s just that quite a lot of state just kept doing it.
What should have actually happened, a long time ago, was the _all_ voting laws had to be precleared by the Justice Department before going into effect. There is simply too small a window between enactment and their effect for lawsuits to happen, too much ability for legislatures to slam things through and people having to rush to court and get injuctions and cause massive confusion. Civil right lawsuits take _years_, and that is multiple voting cycles.
No. You pass a law about that, it doesn’t happen until the Justice Department looks it over and says ‘Yeah’ or ‘No, we’re going to sue over this and it’s paused until the lawsuit is over.’. (Hell, if you were smart, you’d run the laws past the Justice Department before passing them.)Report
That was one of the proposed solutions. It very nicely fixes the whole problem.Report
They don’t ‘agree it is a state issue’, they just agree it’s not a constitutional right. There are plenty of things that are not constitutional rights that nevertheless are regulated by the Federal government.
To get to forbidding the government from making abortion legal nationally, the courts would have to tear down a hell of a lot along the way. I’m not saying they won’t, but they’d almost have to assert the Federal government couldn’t regulate medicine. They’d basically have to remove all meaning from ‘promote the general welfare’.Report
This afternoon I found myself wondering if SCOTUS is as bad at computer security as the rest of the federal government seems to be, and if the leak source might be a hacker or group of hackers. I guess if it’s hackers we’ll see multiple leaked opinions over the next few weeks.Report
If you wanted some tea leaves as to how internal polling is going on this issue, here are some tea leaves:
Report
The Dem party was already signaling last week that they won’t make abortion a national campaign issue this year, because they’re seriously worried about red and purple states. I think this is short sighted, but I think the Dems are always short sighted. As someone once said, “bourgeois democracy always drags at the tail of events.”Report
This decision will be in play between the primaries and the general. Dems will have to make a national campaign issue because the immediate impacts of the state level trigger laws will be visible by that point.Report
For sure, dragging at the tail of events.Report