Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: Judicial Review When the Court Wants To

12 Pages Posted: 22 Dec 2016

Date Written: November 28, 2016

Abstract

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt demonstrates that federal courts generally, and the Supreme Court specifically, are perfectly capable of engaging in legitimate judicial review of legislation that interferes with the exercise of rights and liberties. However, the Court has largely abandoned this mode of review in cases involving rights that the Court has deemed “non-fundamental.” This has resulted in arbitrary line drawing and thus arbitrary application of actual review. As Justice Thomas observed in his dissent, this arbitrariness threatens the Court’s legitimacy as it suggests that little more than naked policy preferences underlie the Court’s selective approach to judicial review. Whole Woman’s Health provides a template for effective, legitimate judicial review.

Keywords: Judicial Review, Abortion, Whole Woman's Health, Economic Liberty

Suggested Citation

Nolette, Joel, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt: Judicial Review When the Court Wants To (November 28, 2016). Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2016. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2887414

Joel Nolette (Contact Author)

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
33
Abstract Views
188
PlumX Metrics