Dobbs判決を契機とした先例拘束性に関する一考察

A Study of Stare Decisis: By Focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization

井上 一洋

廣島法學

The Hiroshima Law Journal

[ISSN] 03865010

[NCID] AN0021395X

When the court overrules a precedent, it encourages substantive discussion of the issue and enhances the legitimacy of the "precedent" as law. On the other hand, the question of when precedent should be overruled is one of the major unresolved controversies.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizations. The Dobbs eliminated constitutional protections for a woman's right to an abortion and allowed states to regulate abortion. Although the issues raised by the Dobbs case are extensive, this article focuses on the fact that the Dobbs overruled the Roe, and then examined the issue of “stare decisis” that has emerged in the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. The examination revealed that even among the conservative justices who form the current majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, no consistent approach to overruling precedent has been adopted.

日本語

広島大学法学会

THE SOCIETY OF LAW OF HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY

許可なく複製・転載することを禁じる