{"id":7253,"date":"2022-11-28T16:52:11","date_gmt":"2022-11-28T21:52:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/?page_id=7253"},"modified":"2025-05-12T11:13:04","modified_gmt":"2025-05-12T15:13:04","slug":"the-problem-with-dobbs-and-the-rule-of-legality","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/submit\/glj-online\/glj-online-vol-111\/the-problem-with-dobbs-and-the-rule-of-legality\/","title":{"rendered":"The Problem with Dobbs and the Rule of Legality"},"content":{"rendered":"<p class=\"p1\"><i>In <\/i><span class=\"s1\">Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/span><i>, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent to overrule <\/i>Roe v. Wade <i>and <\/i>Planned Parenthood v. Casey<i>. In <\/i><span class=\"s1\"><i>anticipation of the Court\u2019s decision, several states adopted \u201ctrigger laws\u201d restricting abortion. The<\/i><\/span><i>se laws were explicitly drafted to take effect if <\/i>Roe <i>and <\/i>Casey <i>were overturned. These laws joined pre-<\/i>Roe <span class=\"s1\"><i>\u201czombie laws\u201d that restricted abortion and were <\/i><\/span><i>never rescinded by state legislatures despite <\/i>Roe <i>and its progeny. Collectively, trigger laws and zombie laws are now being used in several states to impose restrictions on reproductive autonomy. This Essay challenges the validity of these laws. Despite their eponymous names, they are not laws. When the Supreme Court affirmed the right to abortion in <\/i>Roe <i>and reaffirmed that right in <\/i>Casey<i>, any inconsistent state laws were voided. When states adopted laws contrary to <\/i>Roe <i>and <\/i>Casey <i>in the hope of future reversal, these laws were void ab initio. <\/i>Dobbs <i>did not and could not resurrect these laws. Prosecution under trigger laws or zombie laws would violate the rule of legality<\/i><span class=\"s1\"><i>\u2014<\/i><\/span><i>there is no crime in the absence of a duly enacted law. Until state legislatures adopt de novo restrictions on reproductive autonomy, courts should reject any effort to rely on outdated and void legislation.<span class=\"Apple-converted-space\">\u00a0<\/span><\/i><\/p>\n<p>Continue reading\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/26\/2022\/11\/Aceves_The-Problem-with-Dobbs-and-the-Rule-of-Legality.pdf\"><em>The Problem with <\/em>Dobbs<em> and the Rule of Legality.\u00a0<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, the Supreme Court reversed decades of precedent to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In anticipation of the Court\u2019s decision, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8284,"featured_media":0,"parent":6327,"menu_order":2,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"abstract.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":"","_tec_slr_enabled":"","_tec_slr_layout":""},"class_list":["post-7253","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"ticketed":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8284"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7253"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7253\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7256,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/7253\/revisions\/7256"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6327"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.law.georgetown.edu\/georgetown-law-journal\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}