US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
Gonzales v. Carhart 550 U. S. ____
Subscribe to Cases that cite 550 U. S. ____Syllabus
Opinion [Justice Kennedy]
Concurrence [Justice Thomas]
Dissent [Justice Ginsburg]
550 U. S. ____ (2007)
GONZALES V. CARHART
550 U. S. ____ (2007)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NOS. 05-380 AND 05-1382
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER
05–380 v.
LEROY CARHART et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit
ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, PETITIONER
05–1382 v.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
[April 18, 2007]
Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court’s abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914, 980–983 (2000) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 727, n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).
