For 49 years, Roe was the controlling law on abortion rights. Dobbs overruled it — and Casey with it. Every brief still citing Roe's trimester framework or Casey's undue burden test is citing precedent that no longer exists.
0.9s
Analysis time
49 yr
Precedent age
2
Overruled cases found
Scroll
01 — Analysis
Real-time citation scanning
MikeCheck reads your reproductive rights brief, extracts every citation, and checks each against live legal databases — including the Dobbs overruling that eliminated 49 years of precedent overnight.
United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois
Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Preliminary Injunction
Civil Action No. 23-CV-07291
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff seeks relief under
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),
which recognized a fundamental right to terminate a pregnancy under the constitutional right to privacy.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992),
regulations imposing an undue burden on the right to abortion are unconstitutional. The viability line established in Casey remains controlling. See also
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
and
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
for the broader right to privacy.
III. ARGUMENT
The state statute is preempted by federal law. See
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org., 597 U.S. 215 (2022)
for the current constitutional framework.
Waiting
0.0s
1 Parsing citations...
2 Querying treatment history...
3 Verifying quote accuracy...
4 Checking Dobbs overruling scope...
5 Analyzing state law landscape...
6 Generating risk assessment...
Risk Level
CRITICAL
2 overruled cases · 2 at-risk citations
2Overruled
2At risk
1Good law
02 — Findings
What MikeCheck found
5
Citations analyzed
2
Overruled
2
At risk
1
Good law
⚡ 0.9s
⚠ Requires immediate attention
Roe v. Wade
● Overruled
410 U.S. 113 (1973) · U.S. Supreme Court
⚠ Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org. (2022) explicitly overruled Roe after 49 years. The trimester framework and the constitutional right to abortion it recognized no longer exist in federal law. Any brief citing Roe for abortion rights invites immediate Rule 11 scrutiny.
overruled 202249 years erasedtrimester framework gonerule 11 risk
99% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) explicitly overruled Roe after 49 years. The trimester framework and the constitutional right to abortion no longer exist in federal law. Any brief citing Roe for a reproductive-rights proposition is citing directly overruled authority — a Rule 11 violation that opposing counsel will exploit immediately.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Remove all Roe citations. Any abortion-related argument must be rebuilt on state constitutional grounds (many state constitutions protect reproductive rights independently of the federal constitution) or on other federal theories not dependent on substantive due process. Do not cite Roe even for historical context without explicitly noting it has been overruled.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
● Overruled
505 U.S. 833 (1992) · U.S. Supreme Court
⚠ Dobbs overruled Casey alongside Roe. The "undue burden" test Casey established — the framework most practitioners recall — has no legal force. Citing Casey's viability line or undue burden standard carries the same Rule 11 risk as citing Roe directly.
overruled by dobbsundue burden test voidviability line eliminatedrule 11 risk
98% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Dobbs overruled Casey alongside Roe. The "undue burden" test Casey established — the framework most practitioners still remember — has no legal force in federal court. Citing Casey's viability line, the undue burden standard, or any of its reproductive-rights holdings carries exactly the same Rule 11 risk as citing Roe directly.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Remove all Casey citations that rely on its abortion holdings. Casey's joint opinion on stare decisis principles may still be cited for stare decisis methodology, but its substantive abortion framework is void. For reproductive rights in federal court, there is currently no viable federal constitutional theory post-Dobbs — the argument must be made on state grounds.
⚡ At risk — Thomas concurrence targets these cases
Griswold v. Connecticut
⚡ At Risk
381 U.S. 479 (1965) · U.S. Supreme Court
⚡ Still technically good law — Dobbs's majority disclaimed intent to disturb Griswold. However, Justice Thomas's Dobbs concurrence explicitly called for revisiting Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence as future targets. Monitor for cert petitions.
thomas concurrence targets griswoldright to contraceptionsubstantive due process at risk
82% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Griswold remains technically good law — the Dobbs majority expressly disclaimed intent to disturb it. However, Justice Thomas's Dobbs concurrence explicitly called for reconsideration of Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence as cases resting on the same substantive due process theory Dobbs repudiated. A future majority could revisit Griswold, making reliance on it a strategic risk in high-stakes litigation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Cite Griswold with an explicit acknowledgment of the Thomas concurrence risk. For contraception-related arguments, consider whether the state constitution provides an independent, more durable basis. Monitor Supreme Court cert petitions challenging contraception regulations, which would signal the Court's willingness to revisit Griswold.
Lawrence v. Texas
⚡ At Risk
539 U.S. 558 (2003) · U.S. Supreme Court
⚡ Technically good law — Dobbs majority did not overrule Lawrence. Thomas concurrence targeted it by name. The substantive due process reasoning Lawrence relies on was the same doctrine Dobbs repudiated. Cite with explicit acknowledgment of this risk.
thomas concurrence targets lawrenceright to intimacyprivacy doctrine eroded
80% confidence
WHY THIS MATTERS
Lawrence remains technically good law — the Dobbs majority did not overrule it. But Justice Thomas's concurrence targeted Lawrence by name, and the substantive due process reasoning Lawrence relies on is the exact doctrine Dobbs repudiated. Lawrence's doctrinal foundation is more vulnerable than its formal status suggests, and its continued vitality depends entirely on no future majority accepting Thomas's invitation.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Cite Lawrence with an explicit caveat acknowledging its doctrinal vulnerability post-Dobbs. For LGBTQ+ rights arguments, explore whether Bostock v. Clayton County (Title VII statutory grounds) or state constitutional provisions provide a more stable foundation. Do not treat Lawrence as bedrock authority in high-stakes cases without a litigation risk assessment.
✓ 1 citation confirmed as good law
✓ Good law
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Org.
✓ Good Law
597 U.S. 215 (2022) · U.S. Supreme Court
controlling authorityoverruled roe and caseyabortion returned to statescorrectly cited
99% confidence
WHY IT'S SAFE
Dobbs is the current controlling authority on reproductive rights and the primary affirmative authority for any argument that abortion regulation is a matter for state legislatures. The majority opinion is thorough, explicitly overrules Roe and Casey, and is not subject to any erosion risk. Any brief defending abortion regulations should lead with Dobbs.
HOW TO USE IT
Cite Dobbs for the holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and that the question is returned to the states and their democratic processes. For challenges to state abortion restrictions, cite Dobbs as the framework within which any remaining federal constitutional argument must operate. Pair with Planned Parenthood v. Casey only for historical framing (with an overruled notation).
03 — Citation Network
The Dobbs demolition
One opinion. Three overrulings. Forty-nine years of precedent erased in a morning. MikeCheck maps the full destruction — from the Griswold foundation to the Dobbs overruling, including Justice Thomas's roadmap for future targets.
Anchor (subject)
Overruled
At risk
Overruling authority
Historical foundation
04 — Jurisdiction Intelligence
Two circuits protect emergency access. Two don't.
Does EMTALA preempt state abortion bans for emergency medical care? SCOTUS dismissed Moyle v. United States as improvidently granted in 2024 — the split persists unresolved and live circuit conflict determines where your client gets care.
7Circuits analyzed
DirectSplit type
HighSCOTUS review likelihood
"EMTALA in Abortion States"Issue
← EMTALA preempts state banState ban prevails →
9th Cir.
75%
EMTALA prevails
4th Cir.
68%
EMTALA prevails
D.C. Cir.
62%
EMTALA prevails
7th Cir.
Mixed
5th Cir.
71%
State ban prevails
11th Cir.
58%
State ban prevails
8th Cir.
52%
State ban prevails
SCOTUS Review Probability
High
Moyle v. United States (2024) was dismissed as improvidently granted, leaving the split fully alive. A direct 9th/4th vs. 5th/11th conflict on a constitutional question affecting patient care in every abortion-ban state cannot remain unresolved indefinitely.
9th Circuit most protective of emergency access · 5th/8th/11th align with state bans
05 — Quote Verification
The demonstrative that vanished.
The brief drops "This" for "The" — removing the constitutional grounding from Roe's privacy holding. It also omits the entire clause specifying the Fourteenth Amendment basis. That missing clause is precisely the language Dobbs cited to call Roe constitutionally unmoored. The source case is also overruled.
✗ As written in the reproductive rights brief
"The right of privacy is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent."
Attributed to: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)
✓ Actual Roe text (410 U.S. at 153)
"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent."
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 153 (1973)
0%
Similarity score
Two deviations detected: "The" replaces "This," stripping the demonstrative reference to prior due process analysis. The omitted constitutional basis clause is precisely the language Dobbs cited to call Roe constitutionally unmoored. The source case is also overruled.
06 — Treatment History
Forty-nine years. One morning. Gone.
Roe was never universally accepted — Justice White's dissent called it "an act of raw judicial power." Casey (1992) reaffirmed the core holding but replaced the trimester framework with the undue burden test. Whole Woman's Health (2016) was the high-water mark. Then Dobbs arrived on June 24, 2022, overruling 49 years of precedent — and Casey with it.
Positive treatment
Negative treatment
MikeCheck found this in 0.9 seconds
Is your reproductive rights brief citing law that still exists?
Upload any abortion rights brief. MikeCheck identifies overruled cases (Roe, Casey), flags at-risk precedents Thomas explicitly targeted, verifies the privacy passage, and checks the live EMTALA circuit split — before opposing counsel does.