•  
  •  
 

Abstract

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and held that states may regulate abortion in whatever manner they wish. In the wake of Dobbs, commentators and laypersons have focused primarily on its implications for reproductive rights and other fundamental rights—such as gay marriage. Less often discussed are the questions that arise regarding state extraterritorial jurisdiction. Since Dobbs, a patchwork of laws has developed: pro-life states have placed greater restrictions on abortion, while pro-choice states have sought to expand abortion access. Questions have arisen regarding whether and to what extent states may regulate the out-of-state conduct of pregnant women who seek abortions, those who provide assistance to pregnant women seeking to terminate a pregnancy, and abortion providers. This patchwork has the potential to generate interstate conflict and creates new urgency for thinking about the legal and constitutional principles that constrain state extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction. This Article first outlines each states abortion laws, then explores state legislative jurisdiction, and the various barriers that constrain expansive legislative jurisdiction, and finally identifies why expansive legislative jurisdiction would be detrimental to both the Union and individual liberties. Ultimately, the current doctrine has gaps that create risks for comity among the states, and for individuals and businesses attempting to conform to the law of a given state. These gaps should be closed, and should be closed in a way that preserves horizontal federalism.

Download

Share

COinS