Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Roe v. Wade

Supreme Court of the United States · 1973 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional Lawsubstantive due processprivacyabortionoverruled by DobbsDue Process Clauseprivacyabortion decision

Facts

Texas statutes made it a crime to procure or attempt an abortion except when done by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. Roe alleged that she was unmarried and pregnant, wanted to terminate her pregnancy through a competent licensed physician under safe clinical conditions, could not obtain a legal abortion in Texas because her life was not threatened, and could not afford to travel elsewhere. The district court held Roe had standing, dismissed the Does for lack of standing, declared the statutes void, and denied injunctive relief. By the time of appellate review, Roe's pregnancy had ended, raising a mootness question the Court addressed.

Issue

Whether the Texas criminal abortion statutes, which prohibited abortion except to save the mother's life, violated the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing a pregnant woman's protected privacy interest in deciding whether to terminate her pregnancy. The Court also considered whether Roe's case remained justiciable despite the end of her pregnancy.

Rule

The right of personal privacy founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy, but that right is not unqualified. Before approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician; after the first trimester, the State may regulate the abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health; after viability, the State may regulate and even proscribe abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, to preserve the life or health of the mother. A case involving pregnancy is not moot merely because the pregnancy has ended, because pregnancy is capable of repetition yet evading review.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Maya Ortiz filed a federal suit while eight weeks pregnant challenging an Arizona statute that criminalized nearly all abortions except those necessary to save the pregnant patient's life. By the time the court of appeals heard the case, Maya had already given birth, and the state argued the appeal must be dismissed as moot.

How should the appellate court rule on mootness?

Explanation. A pregnancy-related challenge is not rendered moot simply because the plaintiff's pregnancy has ended. The majority reasoned that the human gestation period is too short to allow full appellate review before pregnancy ends, so pregnancy is a classic example of a controversy capable of repetition yet evading review. Therefore, Maya's appeal remains justiciable.