skip navigation
search

GONZALES v. CARHART (Nos. 05-380 and 05-1382)
No. 05–380, 413 F. 3d 791; 05–1382, 435 F. 3d 1163, reversed.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Kennedy]
Concurrence
[Thomas]
Dissent
[Ginsburg]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

550 U. S. ____ (2007)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,PETITIONER

05–380    v.

LEROY CARHART et al.

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the eighth circuit

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,PETITIONER

05–1382    v.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OFAMERICA, 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 , n. 2 (2005) (Thomas, J., concurring).