Summary: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a constitutional challenge to a Mississippi ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Duke University constitutional law professor Neil Siegel is available to comment.
“If the court is going to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in the near future, as it seems poised to do, there is something to be said for the court being fully candid with the country about its intentions by overruling these precedents this term and letting Americans cast their own informed votes on the issue in November,” says Neil Siegel, a Duke University professor of law and professor of political science.
“One virtue of a court with a strong commitment to precedent is that it dramatically lowers the stakes of losing elections and not controlling the court. The current conservative supermajority does not have a strong commitment to precedent.”
Neil Siegel is a law professor and a professor of political science at Duke University, where he also directs Duke Law’s D.C. Institute on Law and Policy.
A former clerk of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Siegel served as special counsel to U.S. Sen. Christopher Coons during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, and advised Sen. Coons during the confirmation hearing of Neil M. Gorsuch. Siegel also served as special counsel to U.S. Sen. Joseph R. Biden during the U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings of John G. Roberts and Samuel A. Alito.
In July Siegel testified before the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States on the constitutionality and justifications of various court reform proposals and their effect on the perceived legitimacy of the Court.
For additional comment, contact Neil Siegel at:
email@example.com or (919) 613-7157
_ _ _ _
Duke experts on a variety of topics can be found here.
Follow Duke News on Twitter: @DukeNews