chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

VIDEO

Combating Originalism in State Courts

Diana Kasdan, Meetra Mehdizadeh, and Aracely Munoz

From the rise of originalism in constitutional interpretation to the landmark Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, courts have increasingly relied on this legal philosophy to justify the rollback of reproductive rights. However, recent state court rulings in North Dakota and Georgia demonstrate how constitutional protections at the state level are being used to challenge originalist arguments and safeguard individual rights. These cases highlight a growing resistance to originalism and its implications for reproductive autonomy. Join our experts as they examine how the North Dakota and Georgia cases push back against originalist interpretations of the law and explore why these legal battles matter. We'll discuss the judges' reasoning, the broader implications for reproductive rights, and how state constitutions are becoming critical tools for protecting privacy and liberty in the post-Dobbs landscape. This discussion will provide a comprehensive look at combating originalism in the courts, unpacking strategies and insights for advancing reproductive justice and challenging regressive legal frameworks.

This presentation is the fifth installment in a multi-part In Conversation Series focused on the ABA's Reproductive Rights Initiative. 

Co-Sponsors: ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, Center for Reproductive Rights,  Santa Clara County Bar Association’s Women Lawyers Section

Resources

Related ABA Policy: 24A506 Repeal of Comstock Act of 1873, 23A511 Women's Health Protection Act

Speakers