Page:Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.pdf/71

Rh in part); Whole Woman’s Health, 579 U. S., at 631–633 (, dissenting); id., at 645–666, 678–684 (, dissenting); June Medical, 591 U. S., at ___–___ (, dissenting) (slip op., at 1–15).

The Court’s abortion cases have diluted the strict standard for facial constitutional challenges. They have ignored the Court’s third-party standing doctrine. They have disregarded standard res judicata principles. They have flouted the ordinary rules on the severability of unconstitutional provisions, as well as the rule that statutes should be read where possible to avoid unconstitutionality. And they have distorted First Amendment doctrines.

When vindicating a doctrinal innovation requires courts to engineer exceptions to longstanding background rules, the doctrine “has failed to deliver the ‘principled and intelligible’ development of the law that stare decisis purports to secure.” Id., at ___ (, dissenting) (slip op., at 19) (quoting Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986)).

Reliance interests. We last consider whether overruling Roe and Casey will upend substantial reliance interests.