Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey [1992]
505 U.S. 833 · Supreme Court of the United States · United States
Reproductive Rights Lawreproductive-rights-lawReproductive Rights LawUndue burden standard; abortion regulation
Issue
Do the challenged provisions of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act impose an undue burden on the right to abortion?
Held
The spousal notification provision is invalid because it imposes an undue burden; the other provisions are facially valid.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Undue burden standard; abortion regulation, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is included in the Reproductive Rights Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Undue burden standard; abortion regulation. The reported citation is 505 U.S. 833, and the decision is associated with Supreme Court of the United States. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is: Planned Parenthood challenged Pennsylvania's abortion law requiring spousal notification, parental consent, and informed consent with a 24-hour waiting period. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Reproductive Rights Law, use the facts to explain why Undue burden standard; abortion regulation was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is reported as a decision of Supreme Court of the United States. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Do the challenged provisions of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act impose an undue burden on the right to abortion?
Held
The spousal notification provision is invalid because it imposes an undue burden; the other provisions are facially valid.
Ratio Decidendi
A state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: A state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Reproductive Rights Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Undue burden standard; abortion regulation; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is a case to use when a Reproductive Rights Law answer needs an authority on Undue burden standard; abortion regulation. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (505 U.S. 833) strengthens a Reproductive Rights Law answer because the case reflects the principle that A state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional if it has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Do the challenged provisions of Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act impose an undue burden on the right to abortion? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
reproductive-rights-law
Reproductive Rights Law
Undue burden standard; abortion regulation
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Undue burden standard; abortion regulation in Reproductive Rights Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Undue burden standard; abortion regulation, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Planned Parenthood challenged Pennsylvania's abortion law requiring spousal notification, parental consent, and informed consent with a 24-hour waiting period., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.