How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade

How The Supreme Court Killed Roe v. Wade

This is a sea change at the Supreme Court. β›‘ Tab for a Cause just launched Tab for Reproductive Health that will raise money for reproductive rights

Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
πŸš€ Extended & ad-free versions on Nebula/CuriosityStream!
πŸ‘” Suits by Indochino!

Send me an email:

Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school!
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you!

Tik Tok:

Please email my agent & manager at

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by (
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

You may also like...

41 Responses

  1. PlagueOfGripes says:

    I understand the need for the supreme court to avoid making law and only look at interpreting the wording of enacted law. But I’m certainly sick and tired of hearing about Originalism – a manufactured concept of interpretation that’s applied fast and loose to support vague conservative ideals.

    • Rolando Curiel says:

      this is it

    • Chris Park says:

      @Charity M bwahahahahah ok as if strict constructionism and originalism are even the same thing. Such a straw man and cop out argument to make. Why don’t you try arguing against my ACTUAL argument.

    • Sky Luke says:

      yeah. I’m just so exhausted with all of us having to constantly fight all the time. we all care so damn much about everyone else, like let people do whatever they want. It’s too much work caring about shit anymore lol

    • Charity M says:

      Judicial review isn’t explicitly mentioned as a right of SCOTUS in the Constitution. Maybe we should get rid of Marbury v Madison.

    • Chris Park says:

      Originalism is the traditional approach to how to decide cases. That’s how they’ve been doing it since the warren court. Get your legal history straight

  2. Solea says:

    I deeply appreciate the work that you do to explain what’s happening without sensationalism, regardless of how emotionally charged the topic is. There is a place for emotional reactions, but we also need facts, or else there can be no knowledge of how to effectively channel emotions into action, and the end result is just flailing and panicking which accomplishes nothing.

    • Mihnea Zarojanu says:

      @go away No, it’s about choosing the things that really matter to you to protest for. Indeed, a lot of horrible things happen in the world – but the human mind is, unfortunately, not equipped to deal with that much sadness and stress, coming from so many directions. That’s why you should focus on just a few things, little or big as they are, such as the women’s right to abortion, in this case.

    • go away says:

      @JosΓ© Ángel so then what do you suppose they do? If an activist being an activist is gonna be unsuccessful, then what is an activist to do? Stop protesting? Weve seen what happens when people silently protest, they’re belittled as humans and chastised as a enemy of the united states. When people protest in the streets people like you insist that it doesn’t do anything but cause issues for their fellow man, so what would you recommend these people do since you clearly know what’s causing these issues to be ignored

    • schwig44 says:

      @JosΓ© Ángel because apparently, it’s too much to fathom that there’s actually that much stuff to fix. Because the world is a perfect place, right?

    • The Bob says:

      @José Ángel Great point, i think this is a big thing that more people need to get on top of but they have spent so much time screaming and hurting others over issues that no one takes them seriously since they do it over every little thing.

    • JosΓ© Ángel says:

      What people don’t understand is, if you frick out for everything as activists usually do, then people will stop taking you seriously, because you desensitized them. If everything is urgent then nothing is.

  3. Russell Harrell says:

    Thank you for being VERY informative on this case. No matter what someone’s opinion is on abortion they can find more than enough material here to show the legal history and what the current arguments and standings are.

  4. southilgurl2003 says:

    I have only ever seen Devin look so tired and saddened in a real law splainer following tragedies. None of the usual attempts at levity shows just how much legal damage Dobbs has created. Thank you Devin for taking the time and the effort for the review.

    • Francisco Petrucci says:

      Some people here need to accept the fact that the pro-life opinion exists only because it is rooted on an OUTDATED religious view. Screwing over the lives of women who are very much alive right now because of a belief in the Soul and (Christian) Heaven and etc honestly looks like religious fanaticism to a lot of the rest of the world.

    • Liastnir says:

      @The Mystery Gamer That seems like a great idea in this era where we’re facing runaway climate change? Or is it the consequences don’t matter compared to legal nitpicking?

    • Jiren Sentry says:

      His name is Devin? Wow? I would not have guessed that name for him at all. Yet, it does fit him well. Names for people are very interesting.

    • KT Mansfield says:

      @Alex Cardosa Won’t be the Pro-Life crowd.

  5. Vulkhard Muller says:

    Devin, I’ve never seen or heard you so burned out looking, I mean that as nicely as possible. Clearly this has been a rough one for you, I can’t imagine pouring through all that legalese was easy. Thank you so much for all you do, this was what I have been waiting for, no hype, no pomp and circumstance, just facts.

    Thank you so much, stay safe out there and get some rest! <3

    • Jeffrey Scarbrough says:

      Probably because he 1 a democrats and 2 it’s costing him money πŸ’΅
      And possibly 3 now he can’t party with the interns and stuff in a way that could get them pregnant and he could just pay for an abortion now he be stuck with 18 years of child support (3 is a joke I hope)

    • RoyalReyna says:

      @amr mousa Not even gonna bother reading all of that, as you clearly don’t understand what the issue actually is. The issue is not “at what point does killing an unborn baby become okay”, the issue is when is it ever appropriate for the law to dictate or deny a course of treatment decided by a doctor and patient? Not only do I believe that pregnancies should be allowed to be terminated at the request of the pregnant individual at *any time* prior to birth, the question to the real issue is that is it not appropriate for the law to be meddling in an individual’s treatment plan. I suggest you actually familiarize yourself with what abortion actually is before trying to engage in these discussions, because abortion is the recommended treatment for several issues that can and do occur during a pregnancy, even a planned and wanted one.
      The second issue outside of the privacy between doctor and patient, is can we compel someone to give birth to someone else? In America, the law is that we have no legal duty (unless enacted by the state or local gov) to save or rescue someone. If you told someone to jump into a river, knowing they couldn’t swim, and they do so, you have no legal duty to jump in after them or to make any attempt to rescue them. If someone is bleeding out in the hospital bed next to you, and you are the same blood type, you cannot be compelled to donate your blood to save them. Doesn’t matter if you’re the only person on the planet with their blood type, doesn’t even matter if the reason they’re bleeding out is because you stabbed them, you have autonomy over your body and cannot be compelled to save someone else. We can’t compel people to become organ donors either, even though I believe that most people (in America) do not have closely held religious beliefs that require them to keep their organs for the afterlife. Thousands of people die every year who are not organ donors but it doesn’t matter what the condition of their organs are, what their blood type is, who they were, how they died, nothing matters except did they consent to donate before death–yes or no. Why do dead bodies get more autonomy and control over their bodies than living breathing women? If we get to choose who lives, that does that mean we get to choose who dies? (Most people who answer yes to the first also answer yes to the second and support the death penalty).
      The third issue is consistency. If fetuses who aren’t born are entitled to life, what would that actually mean for the rest of our legal body? Can we arrest someone who smokes near a pregnant person with attempted murder or assault? If you get into a fenderbender with a pregnant person and they lose their baby after, can you be charged with murder? Can she? There are so many reasons that we as a country chose not to look at abortion as murder (at least from a legal standpoint) because it would create laws that are inconsistent, prioritize the unborn over the living, and would be messy and problematic in general.
      The last issue that I really want you to think about, is how much power and control do we want the government (any government not just federal) to have. Do we really want the government to have the power to arrest and conviction doctors for doing what they were trained to do? Do we really want to arrest women for terminating a non-viable pregnancy? Do we really want the government to have the power to tear apart families and use abortion as a tool to perpetuate poverty and the oppression of women (especially women of color).
      So I don’t care about whatever scenario you imagined. I believe every living human being should have the same bodily autonomy and control as the next. It is hypocritical and contradictory to tell women they must bring life into their world against their own desires, but not require everyone else to donate blood when needed or donate their organs or body to science. It’s hypocritical to say women should pay to give birth to an unwanted child (because birth isn’t free btw) and not require everyone else to contribute to those children’s present and future well-being.

    • Starbase 51: Ship Testing Facility Europa says:

      @taigenraine “You are going to call a living human with DNA that is not hers not only her ‘body’ but her property?” It is partly her DNA. It’s in her body, she is the sole owner of her body. The womb is her organ. Her heart is her property, she can sign it away if she signs a form. The fetus is technically and actually her property. Even if the baby is born, she has to sign a form releasing her “property” away. The only other person who has a say is the father of the child. Technically he is out voted, egg, womb, incubation time, birth (pain). The woman has the majority.

      Alito’s opinion is fatally flawed, overturning of Roe v Wade will have to be reversed. He says no fundamental rights were involved. He and those who voted for overturning Roe v Wade, failed to acknowledge that the woman’s body (egg, womb, fetus) are the exclusive property of the woman and her right to choose. It’s so basic, and fundamental, it never needed to be written down.

    • taigenraine says:

      @Starbase 51: Ship Testing Facility Europa Wow, you really went to property rights? You are going to call a living human with DNA that is not hers not only her ‘body’ but her property? I don’t think that argument has been used like that since it was used to justify slavery.
      Still none of that matters because none of your rights extend to the actions of others. If the procedure is illegal, the person doing it can still face punishment. Every example you bring up about people sticking things into another are actions of others and removing them doesn’t require someone ending the biological functions of another human being. None ‘puts’ a unborn child into you. It’s life starts in you, your actions initiate the start of its life, and the moment it’s DNA becomes unique and different from yours it stops being your body or your property, it is now your child and then you have legal obligations to provide for it’s safely and well being. The very least of those responsibilities is to simply not interfere with the natural biological processes you helped initiate which began it’s existence. Pregnancy is safer than getting into a car, so yes it comes down to personhood for an unborn child. I think they have it, deserve basic human rights, and full protection under US law, as opposed to thinking they are the mother’s property to discard at her convenience.

    • CAP198462 says:

      Ikr, he’s raspy today in the video. Legal Eagle’s been doing a lot of squawking.

  6. Emil Apostol says:

    Hi Devin, Filipino law student here. We studied Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health here in one of my classes, since the Philippine Constitution is largely based on the US Constitution as well.

    Our professor raised an interesting question: can the same reasoning used in Dobbs be used to overturn Miranda v. Arizona, given that the Miranda Rights seemingly have no historical basis to justify its existence?

    Thanks again for the video. Big fan!

    • Hockey in Alabama says:

      @shirlycoh Not being able to sue the police officer doesn’t mean the lack of of a Miranda warning can’t be used in the original case or appeals. It means the cop gets to do what he wants with impunity.

    • Ken Rabe says:

      @Razvan Zamfir That’s an incorrect reading of what was ruled. If cops fail to Mirandize a subject the testimony and whatnot can still be thrown out in a criminal trial (same as before) due to the cops failing to inform a subject of their rights. The supreme court said that a person can’t sue the cops in civil court for failure to Mirandize (also the same as before). Basically they just refused to add a new cause of action in the case where the cops fail to Mirandize a subject.

    • EliotWL says:

      Seeing as they chipped away at those rights in the same week, yes they can. They didn’t fully overturn them like some have mistakenly reported but they definitely chipped away a pretty big protection from it

    • Victor Mandala says:

      @shirlycoh you do not have a right to be read your Miranda rights. If you are not read your rights, then what you say cannot be used to prosecute you (disregarding certain exemptions). Jurors will be told to disregard the evidence. You have a right to a jury trial, a lawyer, and silence. You do NOT have a right to be informed of such. If you aren’t informed of such, your speech cannot be used against you.

  7. MrSlowestD16 says:

    IMO the real tragedy is that it’s such a subjective rationale and it can lead down a rabbit hole of all sorts of interpretations. But it also proves we shouldn’t be entirely dependent on precedent, things NEED to be codified if we want them.

    • Jeffrey Scarbrough says:

      Without precedent there would be no way to codeifie

    • Capitan Classic says:

      And remember when Obama failed to do that 2009-2011, even though it was his top priority during his campaign

    • lordpessimism says:

      As long as the court maintains the position that it is the ultimate arbiter of law, it can make any decision for any reason. If the court says you don’t actually have the right to speak against the government, that’s it. 1st Amendment is dead. The only recourse would be to ignore the court.

    • Bill Garthright says:

      @José Ángel
      Yup, that’s absolutely right. Any law that Congress passes can be changed or revoked by another Congress. But human rights shouldn’t be something that the majority can take away.

      And that’s the case even when it _is_ the majority, which it isn’t in this particular case. The presidency hasn’t been democratic for decades. Republicans almost never win the popular vote. And the Senate _certainly_ isn’t democratic.

      These days, even the House of Representatives isn’t very democratic, since the Republicans on the Supreme Court have allowed political gerrymandering _and_ dark money into our political system (and, of course, the House doesn’t need to approve Supreme Court picks, anyway).

      This is a minority political party trying to hold onto power any way they can. It’s not “both sides,” as another commenter tried to pretend. It’s one political party, built on racism (their “Southern strategy” of deliberately wooing white racists), which finds that racism and other bigotry doesn’t work as well for political advantage as they used to.

      So they’re becoming increasingly anti-democratic, right up to working to take control of the presidency in 2024 again, regardless of what American citizens want. And no, the January 6th insurrection isn’t over. Republicans in state after state are preparing to do that again, only in a way that their Republican partisans on the Supreme Court will rubber-stamp for them.

      That Supreme Court, packed with Christian Taliban extremists, is doing everything it can to turn America into a theocracy permanently controlled by the Republican Party. They’ve _already_ torn down Jefferson”s “Wall of Separation” between religion and government.

  8. Scott Korin says:

    Oh my goodness, thank you for this! Just the beginning explanation was something I never heard before. I didn’t understand how abortion fell into “right to privacy”, but adding how the 9th Amendment affects these decions cleared so much up for me!

  9. Owl-SeeYa says:

    Thank you so much for this, LeagleEagle. If you have the time can you go over trigger laws? I’ve been hearing about a lot of states having these sort of laws already prepared if Roe v Wade died and now that it has, a lot of them have officially become law apparently.

  10. remixex369 says:

    It takes a talented educator to cover a grim topic in such a fantastic way. Thank you for what you do.

    • Ezra Miller says:

      @Lychee Nut I think the it comes down to a difference in values. I think they belive a more stable society is formed by regulating individuals not murdering relatives. That’s why for example you cannot murder grandparents to liquidate there monetary value. As for the health related reasons, you took on that responsibility when you chose to do an activity that results in pregnancy (doesn’t apply to rape conception). You set aside the autonomy when you chose to host someone else within your body. Sex is a waver for children. That’s its primary biological function. If they are consistent they typically pair this argument with equal restrictions and expectations of the father.

    • Lychee Nut says:

      @Ezra Miller Thats kind of the point though, if some people don’t think its healthcare, why do they have any right to affect those who do and will use it, its their choice not to support it but then it no longer is a question of affecting their personal lives. When it requires medical facilities and pharmaceutical companies to support it safely it seems very much like medical care. It is a decision that is not just about the potential life of a fetus that can be argued as a person or not, but also about the livelihood of the person who will need an abortion and their right to biological control on their body. Because no abortion means you will very likely be going to a hospital for very real ‘healthcare’ to fork over 10-20k for a birth without complications or pre and post-natal care.

    • Joshua Sill says:

      @Jeremy Smitherman I was replying to your post in which you said “it took the power away from you as an individual and put it in the power of the state. Individual healthcare shouldn’t be managed at any level of government”. If, and by your words, individual healthcare shouldn’t be managed at any level of government then why is the government forcing me to have healthcare coverage whether thats through an employer provided healthcare benefit or healthcare that I buy through the Affordable Care Act or pay a $10,000 fine at any point that I don’t have health care coverage? So the government took away my right to have or to not have health care coverage and instead forced it one me. So in this context I don’t feel my point is ‘stupid’ and is in fact very relevant.

    • Ezra Miller says:

      @Lychee Nut Β @Lychee NutΒ  I cannot see how. Both what doctors support and what legal protections they have in choosing not to perform an abortion have little to do with one’s perception of it being the killing of a life or not. I’m not arguing that the doctors have to assist you in the matter but that some don’t view abortion as constituting Healthcare, in the same way they view assisted suicide outside of those parameters

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *