On Friday, Sept. 30, students and faculty filed into the chapel to listen to Professor Mary Ziegler’s Constitution Day lecture. As the Martin Luther King Jr. Professor of Law at the University of California Davis, Professor Ziegler delivered a complex and complete analysis of the Supreme Court’s 2022

Dobbs v. Jackson

decision.

Professor Ziegler’s historical analysis began with the formation of the pro-life

movement in the mid-20th century. Although abortion rights had been contested for several decades, Ziegler noted that the 1973

Roe v. Wade

decision took place with the backdrop of the second wave of feminism and various population control movements. Following the

Roe

decision, Evangelical Christians worked to align themselves with the Republican party to put pro-life concerns on the Republican agenda.

Despite having a conservative majority in 1992, the Court upheld

Roe

in

Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Ziegler explained

that the pro-life movement saw two routes to influence future decisions regarding Roe. “The pro-life movement thought that if they changed public opinion surrounding abortion the Court would rule differently. The second solution to

Casey

was to fill the Court with justices who wouldn’t care about public opinion,” Ziegler said.

At the time of the Casey decision, the pro-life movement saw Justice Thomas as the “ideal justice,” according to Ziegler as he “did not care about public opinion,” which became increasingly apparent with his dismissal of Anita Hill’s sexual assault charges against him. Professor Ziegler believes that

Dobbs v. Jackson

reflects the Court’s dismissal of public opinion altogether.

While the Court is supposed to be an independent institution, uninfluenced by partisanship, Professor Ziegler finds the complete neglect of public opinion concerning. “The difference between the Court’s decision and public opinion is, I think, a sign that our democracy isn’t healthy,” said Ziegler. “I see this decision as a stress test on our democracy.”

Ziegler finds that support for the Court is also diminishing due to its current partisanship. “People don’t like the Supreme Court when it’s partisan or in other words, predictable. So I think that the Court in its present form being so predictable is what’s bothering people.”

Regarding future potential steps for the pro-choice movement to take, Ziegler sees the

Dobbs

decision as a potential way to unite the movement. “Organizing around not liking

Dobbs

is something that could be very effective for the pro-choice movement,” said Ziegler. Although passing a federal statute through congress is an option, the Supreme Court would likely strike it down. According to Ziegler, the most effective strategy to reaffirm

Roe

may be to address the composition and role of the Supreme Court itself.

Ziegler notes, “If everything that tries to get passed through Congress ends up back at the Supreme Court, the pro-choice movement will be dancing around in circles unless they address the Court itself.”

Students left the lecture appreciative of the historical review of the case. Cass Beckman ’26 appreciated learning about a topic that is outside of her normal coursework. “I really enjoyed the revision of relevant constitutional and judicial history because it’s easy to forget when you’re not actively studying it,” she said. Beckman also took away a deeper understanding of how political polarization can affect judiciaries. “My biggest takeaway was the emphasis on political division and the potential decrease in court validity or respect of the judiciary as everything gets more politically polarized,” noted Beckman.

Natalie Gutterman ’25 found Ziegler’s analysis of the Supreme Court to be a highlight. “I thought it was really interesting that Ziegler touched on how [the

Dobbs

decision] really shows how the Supreme Court is changing and being increasingly counter-majoritarian,” Gutterman said. “I really enjoyed the whole lecture in general and thought it was really cool how she gave so much important context to the

Roe v. Wade

decision.”

Government Department Chair Peter Cannavó remarked that “we need professors like Professor Ziegler to help us understand where we are and where we’re going.”