In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Supreme Court overruled Roe and Casey and held that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Under current federal constitutional doctrine, abortion regulation therefore generally returns to elected governments, subject to other constitutional provisions and federal law. State constitutions and statutes may protect access more broadly, restrict it more heavily, or assign the question directly to voters. Historical importance is not the same as present precedential force.

Dobbs stated that its analysis concerned abortion and distinguished precedents involving contraception, intimacy, and marriage. A reader should neither assume that Dobbs overruled those cases nor assume that every reproductive-policy dispute is settled. Questions concerning federal authority, interstate activity, emergency medical obligations, medication regulation, religious claims, or free speech require their own legal source and facts. CLEP questions are most likely to test the basic change from Roe and Casey to Dobbs. Reproductive-decision cases also illustrate why the doctrinal source matters. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court used equal protection to invalidate a selective compulsory-sterilization law and described procreation as a basic civil right. Contraception cases developed decisional privacy and liberty. Modern abortion doctrine now follows Dobbs. Placing all three under one label without naming equal protection, liberty, or current precedent would conceal the rule that controls.

A complete current-law analysis identifies the source and level of protection. A federal constitutional claim based only on Roe encounters Dobbs. A state constitutional claim depends on that state's text and precedent. A challenge to a federal regulation requires statutory authority and any independently applicable constitutional rule. Political controversy does not merge those legal paths. The same regulation may therefore survive one theory while remaining vulnerable under another source of law, and a court must have jurisdiction to reach the claim presented.

Consider three laws. A ban on contraceptive use by married adults directly implicates Griswold. A state abortion restriction cannot be invalidated merely by applying Roe's former viability rule, though another state or federal claim may be available. A law punishing advocacy about reproductive policy raises a First Amendment question even though Dobbs changed abortion-related substantive due process. The regulated act, government actor, and asserted source of law determine the analysis.

Contraception cases remain part of constitutional privacy law, while Roe and Casey are historically significant precedents that Dobbs overruled.

Video lesson: Due process and the right to privacy | AP US Government & Politics | Khan Academy