# Doe v. Bolton

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 26, 1973 · 410 U.S. 179

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425164

## Case

- **Full name:** DOE Et Al. v. BOLTON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF GEORGIA, Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 26, 1973
- **Citations:** 410 U.S. 179; 93 S. Ct. 739; 35 L. Ed. 2d 201; 1973 U.S. LEXIS 112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Rehnquist
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, Powell, White, Rehnquist, Rehn-Quist
- **Cited by:** 1,167 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Abrogated on other grounds by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 1
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425164

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that abortion providers “against whom [abortion regulations] directly operate” but who had not “been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for violation of the State’s abortion statutes[,] ... should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution …
- finding physicians challenging an abortion statute had standing to do so “despite the fact that the record does not disclose that any one of them has been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution.... They should not be required to await and undergo a criminal prosecution as …
- holding that physicians, asserting the rights of their patients, have standing to challenge the constitutionality of a criminal abortion statute even though “the record does not disclose that any one of them has been prosecuted, or threatened with prosecution, for violation of…
- concluding that the court “need not pass upon the status of these additional appellants in this suit, for the issues are sufficiently and adequately presented by Doe and the physician-appellants, and nothing is gained or lost by the presence or absence of the [others]”
- concluding that it followed from Roe that “Doe presents a justiciable controversy,” even though when “[a]n offer of proof” was made as to Doe’s identity, the district court had “deemed it unnecessary to receive that proof” (emphasis added)

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
dissenting.
The holding in Roe v. Wade, ante, p. 113, that state abortion laws can withstand constitutional scrutiny only if the State can demonstrate a compelling state interest, apparently compels the Court’s close scrutiny of the various provisions in Georgia’s abortion statute. Since, as indicated by my dissent in Wade, I view the compelling-state-interest standard as an inappropriate measure of the constitutionality of state abortion laws, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9425164. Public record. Not legal advice.