See Brief for Respondents 18; Brief for United States 2324. Therefore, a new rule that discards the viability rule cannot be defended on stare decisis grounds. The District Court reduced the punitive damages award, but left the verdict otherwise intact. State Dept. The majority does not saywhich is itself ominouswhether a State may prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion when she and her doctor have determined it is a needed medical treatment. See ante, at 61, and n. 57. Finally, the dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. These women know, even as they choose to have an abortion, what it is to look at a sonogram image and to value a fetal life. . so part of the challenge of briefing is to identify those issues in the case which are of central importance to the topic under discussion in class. Id., at 864. WebA dissenting opinion disagrees with the majority opinion because of the reasoning and/or the principles of law on which the decision is based. For example, if the period required to give women a reasonable opportunity to obtain an abortion were pegged, as the concurrence seems to suggest, at the point when a certain percentage of women make that choice, see post, at 12, 910, we would have to identify the relevant percentage. Except in the places quoted above, the state interest in protecting fetal life plays no part in the majoritys analysis. Because the prosecution of a person who had not engaged in expressive conduct would pose a different case, and because this case may be disposed of on narrower grounds, we address only Johnson's claim that 42.09, as applied to political expression like his, violates the First Amendment. Both those who want the UN to play a greater role in world affairs and those who want its role confined to humanitarian work or otherwise reduced use the term "UN reform" to refer to their ideas. In doing all of that, it places in jeopardy other rights, from contraception to same-sex intimacy and marriage. . Instead, it merely rephrased what Roe had said, stating that viability marked the point at which the independent existence of a second life can in reason and fairness be the object of state protection that now overrides the rights of the woman. 505 U.S., at 870. Compare June Medical, 591 U.S., at ______ (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 12), with id., at ______ (Roberts, C.J., concurring) (slip op., at 56). See Harris v. Jones, 281 Md. The approach also finds support in prior opinions. What the Black Man Wants: An Address Delivered in Boston, Massachusetts, on 26 January 1865, reprinted in 4 The Frederick Douglass Papers 59, 68 (J. Blassingame & J. McKivigan eds. The majority responds (if we understand it correctly): well, yes, but we have to apply the law. The more outrageous the funeral protest, the more publicity the Westboro Baptist Church is able to obtain. 9293. There are certain well defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. See Brief for Petitioners 1213. Munzel stated there is no number, percentage, or range of numbers or percentages that constitute critical mass. The few cases available from the early colonial period corroborate that abortion was a crime. Three of the dissenters, rejecting the majority's Marks analysis, examined the Law School's interest in student body diversity on the merits and concluded it was not compelling. In Justice Powell's view, when governmental decisions "touch upon an individual's race or ethnic background, he is entitled to a judicial determination that the burden he is asked to bear on that basis is precisely tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest." 15511552. See id., at 317. While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about existence, meaning, the universe, and the mystery of human life, they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. Khandekar, Roopmati, 2012, "United Nations; The Reforms Process", Sumit Publishers. And therefore: If it is appropriate for the Univer-. See New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, ___ (2022) (slip op., at 26) (Historical evidence that long predates [ratification] may not illuminate the scope of the right). In Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 383 U. S. 418, the Roth test was elaborated to read as follows: "[T]hree elements must coalesce: it must be established that (a) the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex; (b) the material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; and (c) the material is utterly without redeeming social value.". traditions. One scholar has suggested that Parliaments decision may partly have been attributable to the medical mans concern that fetal life should be protected by the law at all stages of gestation. Keown 22. ", The American flag played a central role in our Nation's most tragic conflict, when the North fought against the South. That any person who shall administer to any woman with child, or prescribe for any such woman, or suggest to, or advise, or procure her to take any medicine, drug, substance or thing whatever, or who shall use or employ, or advise or suggest the use or employment of any instrument or other means or force whatever, with intent thereby to cause or procure the miscarriage or abortion or premature labor of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve her life, or the life of such child, shall, in case the death of such child or of such woman results in whole or in part therefrom, be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a term not more than ten (10) years nor less than three (3) years., Sec. Some may criminalize efforts, including the provision of information or funding, to help women gain access to other States abortion services. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER delivered the opinion of the Court. The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion. by Floyd Abrams and Susan Buckley; for the Graduate Management Admission Council et al. It is not. The difficulty is that we do not deal with constitutional terms, since "obscenity" is not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories, the question is whether the right is deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition and whether it is essential to this Nations scheme of ordered liberty. Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___, ___ (internal quotation marks omitted). See United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___, ___ (2021) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (slip op., at 6). 512 U. S. 753, 768 (1994). Nor does the Constitution countenance the unprecedented deference the Court gives to the Law School, an approach inconsistent with the very concept of "strict scrutiny.". A direct democracy would request the presidential election of the UN Secretary-General by direct vote of the citizens of the democratic countries (world presidentialism) as well as the General Assembly (just as cities, states and nations have their own representatives in many systems, who attend specifically to issues relevant to the given level of authority) and the International Court of Justice. Finally, even if the Law School's racial tinkering produces tangible educational benefits, a marginal improvement in legal education cannot justify racial discrimination where the Law School has no compelling interest either in its existence or in its current educational and admissions policies. 920, 926, 947 (1973) (Ely) (emphasis deleted). See 410 U.S., at 152153. I doubt that when Justice Frankfurter spoke of governmental intrusions into the independence of universities, he was thinking of the Constitution's ban on racial discrimination. That is cold comfort, of course, for the poor woman who cannot get the money to fly to a distant State for a procedure. ent, racial stereotypes lose their force because nonminority students learn there is no "'minority viewpoint'" but rather a variety of viewpoints among minority students. 14), p. 47, U. N. Doc. And the Law School's amici cannot seem to agree on the fundamental question whether the test itself is useful. (1)First, the Court reviews the standard that the Courts cases have used to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendments reference to liberty protects a particular right. Presumably most of the remainder would also take place earlier if later abortions were not a legal option. at 485 U. S. 321 (plurality opinion); see also id. There are serious problems with this approach, and it is revealing that nothing like it was recommended by either party. The percentage of minority offers, however, at no point fell below 12%, historically defined by the Law School as the bottom of its critical mass range. It eliminates a 50-year-old constitutional right that safeguards womens freedom and equal station. interest at stake, that helps to determine whether a restriction on that expression is valid. The majoritys failure to understand this fairly obvious point stems from its rejection of the idea of balancing interests in this (or maybe in any) constitutional context. Stare decisis is rooted in Article III of the Constitution and is fundamental to the American judicial system and to the stability of American law. The Texas law is thus not aimed at protecting the physical integrity of the flag in all circumstances, but is designed instead to protect it only against impairments that would cause serious offense to others. Supp. "[W]e have indicated . Workability. 642, 653, 584 A. I join the opinion of THE CHIEF JUSTICE. . 586 U.S., at ______ (slip op., at 37). In Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476 (1957), the Court sustained a conviction under a federal statute punishing the mailing of "obscene, lewd, lascivious or filthy . The Casey plurality tried to put meaning into the undue burden test by setting out three subsidiary rules, but these rules created their own problems. Respondents and their amici have no persuasive answer to this historical evidence. Of the approximately 100 demonstrators, Johnson alone was charged with a crime. Instead, the opinion perceived a more intangible form of reliance, namely, that people [had] organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . To support this contention, the dissent claims that Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, and other landmark cases overruling prior precedents responded to changed law and to changed facts and attitudes that had taken hold throughout society. Post, at 43. No recent developments, in either law or fact, have eroded or cast doubt on those precedents. And because such dramatic change had occurred, the public could understand why the Court was acting. Every physician or other person who shall wilfully administer to any pregnant woman any medicine, drug or substance whatsoever, or shall use or employ any instrument or means whatsoever, with intent thereby to procure abortion or the miscarriage of any such woman, unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of such woman, or shall have been advised by a physician to be necessary for that purpose, shall, upon conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment.87, Sec. One piece of evidence on that score seems especially salient: The majoritys cavalier approach to overturning this Courts precedents. materials. This is what happened in Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada last fall after Texas effectively banned abortions past six weeks of gestation. 4141191. 576 U.S., at 671. We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today. at 402 U. S. 619-620 (WHITE, J., dissenting); United States v. Raines, 362 U. S. 17, 362 U. S. 21-22 (1960); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 371 U. S. 433 (1963). 12. Cal. For instance, in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. ", "And the rocket's red glare, the bomb bursting in air,", "Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there,", "O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave", "O'er the land of the free & the home of the brave? We begin with the common law, under which abortion was a crime at least after quickeningi.e., the first felt movement of the fetus in the womb, which usually occurs between the 16th and 18th week of pregnancy.24, The eminent common-law authorities (Blackstone, Coke, Hale, and the like), Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 7), all describe abortion after quickening as criminal. 584585 (emphasis added). Should the audience for these too-much-repeated protestations be duly satisfied? . by Wendy R. Weiser and Martha F. Davis; for the School of Law of the University of North Carolina by John Charles Boger, Julius L. Chambers, and Charles E. Daye; for the Society of American Law Teachers by Michael Selmi and Gabriel J. Chin; for the UCLA School of Law Students of Color by Sonia Mercado; for the United Negro College Fund et al. 07-290. Universities in other States can and should draw on the most promising aspects of these race-neutral alternatives as they develop. An effort to achieve racial balance among the minorities the school seeks to attract is, by the Court's own admission, "patently unconstitutional." Pp. However strong the public's desire for improved education systems may be, see P. Hart & R. Teeter, A National Priority: Americans Speak on Teacher Quality 2, 11 (2002) (public opinion research conducted for Educational Testing Service); No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. See L. Reagan, When Abortion Was a Crime 4243, 198199, 208209 (1997). The judgment of the Appellate Department of the Superior Court, Orange County, California, is vacated and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the First Amendment standards established by this opinion. Dean Allan Stillwagon, who directed the Law School's Office of Admissions from 1979 to 1990, explained the difficulties he encountered in defining racial groups entitled to benefit under the Law School's affirmative action policy. For the past 20 years, the congregation of the Westboro Baptist Church has picketed military funerals to communicate its belief that God hates the United States for its tolerance of homosexuality, particularly in Americas military. . 7018; see also C. Forsythe, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade 127, 141 (2012). by William A. Norris and Michael C. Small; for the New America Alliance by Thomas R. Julin and D. Patricia Wallace; for the New Mexico Hispanic Bar Association et al. Texas suggests that Johnson's conviction did not depend on the onlookers' reaction to the flag burning, because 42.09 is violated only when a person physically mistreats the flag in a way that he "knows will seriously offend one or more persons likely to observe or discover his action." A majority of the Court has validated only two circumstances where "pressing public necessity" or a "compelling state interest" can possibly justify racial discrimination by state actors. Here, there is a clear path to deciding this case correctly without overruling Roe all the way down to the studs: recognize that the viability line must be discarded, as the majority rightly does, and leave for another day whether to reject any right to an abortion at all. See Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582, 618 (2016). At the least, todays opinion will fuel the fight to get contraception, and any other issues with a moral dimension, out of the Fourteenth Amendment and into state legislatures.9. Under this scheme, each trimester of pregnancy was regulated differently, but the most critical line was drawn at roughly the end of the second trimester, which, at the time, corresponded to the point at which a fetus was thought to achieve viability, i.e., the ability to survive outside the womb. Ante, at 340. Derived from the Latin obscaenus ob, to, plus caenum, filth, "obscene" is defined in the Webster's Third New International Dictionary (Unabridged 1969) as, "1a: disgusting to the senses . Caseys undue burden test has scored poorly on the workability scale. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be deeply rooted in this Nations history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Washington became a State in 1889. . [Footnote 2/2]. is essential to the military's ability to fulfill its principle mission to provide national security." The Roe Court took sides on a consequential moral and policy issue that this Court had no constitutional authority to decide. The Court retained what it called Roes central holdingthat a State may not regulate pre-viability abortions for the purpose of protecting fetal lifebut it provided no principled defense of the viability line. It states that measures designed to ensure that the womans choice is informed are constitutional so long as they do not impose an undue burden on the right. Casey, 505 U.S., at 878. In the First and Second World Wars, thousands of our countrymen died on foreign soil fighting for the American cause. See H. Hart & A. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law 568569 (1994). Few would doubt that a protester who extinguishes the flame has desecrated the gravesite, regardless of whether he prefaces that act with a speech explaining that his purpose is to express deep admiration or unmitigated scorn for the late President. Would the Court in Brown some 30 years later in 1954 have reaffirmed Plessy and upheld racially segregated schools simply because of that intervening 1924 precedent? . The context of the speechits connection with Matthew Snyders funeralcannot by itself transform the nature of Westboros speech. As the Court explains, the admissions policy challenged here survives review under the standards stated in Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pea, 515 U. S. 200 (1995), Richmond v. J. But we have partially overruled precedents before, see, e.g., United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 142144 (1985); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328331 (1986); Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 9093 (1986), and certainly have never held that a distinct holding defining the contours of a constitutional right must be treated as part and parcel of the right itself. The abortion right is also critically different from any other right that this Court has held to fall within the Fourteenth Amendments protection of liberty. Roes defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called fetal life and what the law now before us describes as an unborn human being.13. Ibid. If the Court defers to the Law School's judgment that a racially mixed student body confers educational benefits to all, then why would the Wygant Court not defer to the school board's judgment with respect to the benefits a racially mixed faculty confers? . Laws ch. Has not the majority insisted for the prior 30 or so pages that the specific practice[] respecting abortion at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment precludes its recognition as a constitutional right? See 1 W. Russell & C. Greaves, Crimes and Misdemeanors 540 (5th ed. Or would it be unconstitutional on the ground that it creates an undue burden because the burden it imposes, though slight, outweighs its negligible benefits? 36 See 410 U.S., at 154155 (collecting cases decided between 1970 and 1973); C. Means, The Phoenix of Abortional Freedom: Is a Penumbral or Ninth-Amendment Right About To Arise From the Nineteenth-Century Legislative Ashes of a Fourteenth-Century Common-Law Liberty? can justify the use of race. The Court therefore turns to the question that the Casey plurality did not consider. We make them because they are right, right. See, e.g., June Medical Services L.L.C. v. Russo, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) (holding a law requiring doctors performing abortions to secure admitting privileges to be unconstitutional); Whole Womans Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016) (similar); Casey, 505 U.S., at 846 (declaring that prohibitions on abortion before viability are unconstitutional); id., at 887898 (holding that a spousal notification provision was unconstitutional). They also would have recognized that it can be destroyed much more quickly. 2. As the Courts preferred manifestation of liberty changed, so, too, did the test used to protect it, as Roes author lamented. Instead, the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. Casey, 505 U.S., at 855. These include the lewd and obscene. . for Cert. The viability line, Casey thought, was more workable than any other in marking the place where the womans liberty interest gave way to a States efforts to preserve potential life. We have honestly attempted to eliminate the lowest grade of applicant [through the use of intelligence testing] and it turns out that a good many of the low grade men are New York City Jews.''' Roe and Casey each struck a particular balance between the interests of a woman who wants an abortion and the interests of what they termed potential life. Roe, 410 U.S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U.S., at 852. 4141191(2)(b)(i)(8). Universities in California, Florida, and Washington State, where racial preferences in admissions are prohibited by state law, are currently engaged in experimenting with a wide variety of alternative approaches. Through that democratic process, the people and their representatives may decide to allow or limit abortion. This is to ignore as judges what we know as men and women. . The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. . 876877. These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents constitutional challenge must fail. Held:The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives. The only evidence offered by the State at trial to show the reaction to Johnson's actions was the testimony of several persons who had been seriously offended by the flag burning. The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roes central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion. . App. Brief for Respondent 12, n. 11. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions. Or if it is not serious, then . v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, which the majority also relies on. 44 The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires non-grandfathered health plans in the individual and small group markets to cover certain essential health benefits, which include maternity and newborn care. 25. 2001); Compelling Interest: Examining the Evidence on Racial Dynamics in Colleges and Universities (M. Chang, D. Witt, J. Jones, & K. Hakuta eds. proscribe[s] only those racial classifications that would violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Fifth Amendment"); General Building Contractors Assn., Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U. S. 375, 389-391 (1982) (the prohibition against discrimination in 1981 is coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause). The Mississippi law at issue here, for example, has no exception for rape or incest, even for underage women. But under the narrower approach proposed here, state laws outlawing abortion altogether would still violate binding precedent. The Westboro Baptist Church, however, has devised a strategy that remedies this problem. Under the proper standard, there is no pressing public necessity in maintaining a public law school at all and, it follows, certainly not an elite law school. See, e.g., Memphis Center for Reproductive Health v. Slatery, 14 F. 4th, at 414 (considering law with bans at cascading intervals of two to three weeks beginning at six weeks), rehg en banc granted, 14 F. 4th 550 (CA6 2021). Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 337 U. S. 4. Could the government, on this theory, prohibit the burning of state flags? A physician determining a particular fetuss odds of surviving outside the womb must consider a number of variables, including gestational age, fetal weight, a womans general health and nutrition, the quality of the available medical facilities, and other factors. In some sense, that is the difference in a nutshell between our precedents and the majority opinion. In reaffirming the right Roe recognized, the Court took full account of the diversity of views on abortion, and the importance of various competing state interests. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion, and by the same token, our conclusion that the Constitution does not confer such a right does not undermine them in any way. It has strict eligibility requirements for Medicaid and nutrition assistance, leaving many women and families without basic medical care or enough food. This "we know it when we see it" approach to evaluating state interests is not capable of judicial application. Pregnant with expressive content, the flag as readily signifies this Nation as does the combination of letters found in "America.". We make one initial point about this analysis in light of the majoritys insistence that Roe and Casey, and we in defending them, are dismissive of a States interest in protecting prenatal life. Ante, at 38. 560, 567, 571, 380 A. [Footnote 2/1] Most of the state statutes are patterned after the Uniform Flag Act of 1917, which in 3 provides: "No person shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon, or by word or act cast contempt upon any such flag, standard, color, ensign or shield.". The Court suggests a possible 25-year limitation on the Law School's current program. At common law, abortion was criminal in at least some stages of pregnancy and was regarded as unlawful and could have very serious consequences at all stages. Rather, regulations and prohibitions of abortion are governed by the same standard of review as other health and safety measures. and Ky., Inc., 587 U.S. ___, ______ (2019) (Thomas, J., concurring) (slip op., at 14). Code 46 (1833) (same); 1867 Ill. Laws p. 89 (extending liability to abortions by means of any instrument[s] and raising penalties to imprisonment not less than two nor more than ten years). The Court, on the majoritys logic, could transfer those choices to the State without having to consider a persons settled understanding that the law makes them hers. As with "fighting words," so with flag burning, for purposes of the First Amendment: It is, "no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and [is] of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from [it] is clearly outweighed". In considering that question, the Court held, [h]istory and tradition, especially as reflected in the course of our precedent, guide and discipline [the] inquiry. Id., at 664. 39-5-843, 39-5-847 (1982); Tex.Penal Code Ann. Similar clauses are found in Article I and Article III; the former bestows federal legislative power exclusively to Congress, and the latter grants judicial power solely to the Supreme Court, and other federal courts established by law. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 10 U. S. 128 (1810) (Marshall, C.J.). Cf. 609.40 (1987); Miss.Code Ann. How is it that our Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendments liberty clause, guarantees access to contraception (also not legally protected in 1868) so that women can decide for themselves whether and when to bear a child? Taking away the right to abortion, as the majority does today, destroys all those individual plans and expectations. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943). Finally, the majority ignores, as explained above, that some women decide to have an abortion because their circumstances change during a pregnancy. The legislature then found that at 5 or 6 weeks gestational age an unborn human beings heart begins beating; at 8 weeks the unborn human being begins to move about in the womb; at 9 weeks all basic physiological functions are present; at 10 weeks vital organs begin to function, and [h]air, fingernails, and toenails . ); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 177 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179, 222 (1973) (White, J., dissenting). These different numbers, moreover, come only as a result of substantially different treatment among the three underrepresented minority groups, as is apparent in an example offered by the Law School and highlighted by the Court: The school asserts that it "frequently accepts nonminority applicants with grades and test scores lower than underrepresented minority applicants (and other nonminority applicants) who are rejected." The Court then rejected a challenge to Missouris definition of viability, holding that the States definition was consistent with Roes. There was a time, Casey explained, when the Constitution did not protect men and women alike. 505 U.S., at 896. Levy, Timothy Lynch, James L. Swanson, and Samuel Estreicher; for the Center for Equal Opportunity et al. Moreover, we are aware of no common-law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Ibid. Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U. S. 229 (1972); United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S. at 402 U. S. 354; Roth v. United States, supra, at 354 U. S. 485. v. Friedlander, 978 F.3d 418, 437 (CA6 2020), and Hopkins v. Jegley, 968 F.3d 912, 915 (CA8 2020) (percuriam), with Planned Parenthood of Ind. 176(k), and Texas has no quarrel with this means of disposal. [Roth v. United States, supra, at 354 U. S. 498]; see Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U. S. 478, 370 U. S. 488 (opinion of Harlan, J.) 2187 (1890) (emphasis added). If the Court abdicates its constitutional duty to give strict scrutiny to the use of race in university admissions, it negates my authority to approve the use of race in pursuit of student diversity. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 493 (1954). See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), R. Wilson, J. Klevens, D. Williams, & L. Xu, Infant Homicides Within the Context of Safe Haven LawsUnited States, 20082017, 69 Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1385 (2020). See Brief for Petitioners 1213; see also Brief for American Historical Association etal. See 533 F.Supp. Casey, 505 U.S., at 851. The majority grants deference to the Law School's "assessment that diversity will, in fact, yield educational benefits," ante, at 328. . Whether Johnson's treatment of the flag violated Texas law thus depended on the likely communicative impact of his expressive conduct. The majority offers no evidence to the contraryno example of a founding-era law making pre-quickening abortion a crime (except when a woman died). We find that the Law School's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. Ante, at 33; see ante, at 34. Argued October 6, 2010Decided March 2, 2011. Indeed, in this case, 26 States expressly ask us to overrule Roe and Casey and to return the issue of abortion to the people and their elected representatives. The facially race-neutral "percent plans" now used in Texas, California, and Florida, see ante, at 340, are in many ways the descendents of the certificate system. at 474. Unlike the program at issue in Gratz v. Bollinger, ante, p. 244, the Law School awards no mechanical, predetermined diversity "bonuses" based on race or ethnicity. 30 For manuals restating one or both rules, see J. Davis, Criminal Law 96, 102103, 339 (1838); Conductor Generalis 194195 (1801) (printed in Philadelphia); Conductor Generalis 194195 (1794) (printed in Albany); Conductor Generalis 220 (1788) (printed in New York); Conductor Generalis 198 (1749) (printed in New York); G. Webb, Office and Authority of a Justice of Peace 232 (1736) (printed in Williamsburg); Conductor Generalis 161 (1722) (printed in Philadelphia); see also J. Conley, Doing It by the Book: Justice of the Peace Manuals and English Law in Eighteenth Century America, 6 J. (c) Casey identified another concern, namely, the danger that the public will perceive a decision overruling a controversial watershed decision, such as Roe, as influenced by political considerations or public opinion. After a jury trial, he was convicted of violating California Penal Code 311.2(a), a misdemeanor, by knowingly distributing obscene matter, [Footnote 1], and the Appellate Department, Superior Court of California, County of Orange, summarily affirmed the judgment without opinion. That is not so. The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboros picketing was outrageous. Outrageousness, however, is a highly malleable standard with an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression. Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). But this is not one of them. Thus, musical comedies enjoy almost unbridled license, while a problem play is often forbidden because opposed to our views of marriage. To be sure, many Americans will disagree with the Courts decision today. As explained herein, the Court in each case relied on traditional stare decisis factors in overruling. If there are to be restraints on what is obscene, then a constitutional amendment should be the way of achieving the end. 246a. If his conduct was expressive, we next decide whether the State's regulation is related to the suppression of free expression. Abortion statutes traditionally and currently provide for an exception when an abortion is necessary to protect the life of the mother. 809. Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U. S. 1 (1958). 428 U.S., at 6364. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599600 (1977). The discussion of public issues can be fully articulated without harming innocent people for arbitrary reasons. Roe and Casey have been the law of the land for decades, shaping womens expectations of their choices when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. 3. In interpreting what is meant by liberty, the Court must guard against the natural human tendency to confuse what the Fourteenth Amendment protects with the Courts own ardent views about the liberty that Americans should enjoy. REHNQUIST, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which WHITE and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined, post, p. 491 U. S. 421. The Court's civics lesson presents yet another example of judicial selection of a theory of political representation based on skin color-an endeavor I have previously rejected. Columbia, Harvard, and others infamously determined that they had "too many" Jews, just as today the Law School argues it would have "too many" whites if it could not discriminate in its admissions process. The majority does not wish to talk about these matters for obvious reasons; to do so would both ground Roe and Casey in this Courts precedents and reveal the broad implications of todays decision. Stat., ch. The Little Ivy League colleges, for instance, do not keep ongoing tallies of racial or ethnic composition of their entering students. It is a history of women dying. It reviewed the same arguments made here in support of overruling Roe, and it found that doing so was not warranted. The dissent suggests that we have focused only on the legal status of abortion in the 19th century, post, at 26, but our review of this Nations tradition extends well past that period. See Presidential Proclamation No. as Amici Curiae 27 ("After Bakke, each of the amici (and undoubtedly other selective colleges and universities as well) reviewed their admissions procedures in light of Justice Powell's opinion . (b)The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Still, the future significance of todays opinion will be decided in the future. The Solicitor General argued that abandoning the viability line would leave courts and others with no continued guidance. Id., at 101. 337. What causes one person to boil up in rage over one pamphlet or movie may reflect only his neurosis, not shared by others. [11], A. Philip Randolph receiving the Medal from President Lyndon Johnson at one of the first ceremonies, 1964, President Richard Nixon presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Duke Ellington, 1969, President Gerald Ford awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom with Distinction to Martha Graham, 1976, Arthur Goldberg speaking at his ceremony where he was awarded the Medal by President Jimmy Carter, 1978, President Ronald Reagan presenting Mother Teresa with the award, 1985, Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher receiving the award, in its unusual bow form, from President George H. W. Bush, 1991, Rosa Parks receives the award from President Bill Clinton, 1996, Fred Rogers smiles as he receives the award from President George W. Bush, 2002. sity of Michigan Law School to use racial discrimination for the purpose of putting together a "critical mass" that will convey generic lessons in socialization and good citizenship, surely it is no less appropriate-indeed, particularly appropriate-for the civil service system of the State of Michigan to do so. 24. Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 418 U. S. 413, n. 7 (1974). All applicants have the opportunity to highlight their own potential diversity contributions through the submission of a personal statement, letters of recommendation, and an essay describing the ways in which the applicant will contribute to the life and diversity of the Law School. 1775) (Blackstone). But by a 7-to-2 vote, the Court held that in the earlier stages of pregnancy, that contested and contestable choice must belong to a woman, in consultation with her family and doctor. But the insistence on quickening was not universal, see Mills, 13 Pa., at 633; State v. Slagle, 83 N.C. 630, 632 (1880), and regardless, the fact that many States in the late 18th and early 19th century did not criminalize pre-quickening abortions does not mean that anyone thought the States lacked the authority to do so. In the Court of Appeals, Westboros primary argument was that the church was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the First Amendment fully protected Westboros speech. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Every person who shall administer to any pregnant woman, or prescribe for any such woman, or advise or procure any such woman to take, any medicine, drug, or substance or thing whatever, or shall use or employ any instrument or other means whatever, or advise or procure the same to be used, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of any such woman, shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment in a county jail, not more than one year nor less than three months, or by fine, not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court., Sec. Roe and Casey have themselves formed the legal foundation for subsequent decisions protecting these profoundly personal choices. And indeed, it has given no other reason for overruling Roe and Casey. At that point these policies will clearly have failed to "'eliminat[e]. Thus, if Texas means to argue that its interest does not prefer any viewpoint over another, it is mistaken; surely one's attitude toward the flag and its referents is a viewpoint. The Barnette Court did not claim that its reexamination of the issue was prompted by any intervening legal or factual developments, so if the Court had followed the dissents new version of stare decisis, it would have been compelled to adhere to Gobitis and countenance continued First Amendment violations for some unspecified period. Otherwise, as the Court today explains, many long-since-overruled cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905); Minersville School Dist. Although the elements of the IIED tort are difficult to meet, respondents long ago abandoned any effort to show that those tough standards were not satisfied here. 1, 254 (1979); Md.Ann. See 410 U.S., at 163164. 509. Roe and Casey have of course aroused controversy and provoked disagreement. See Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767. Thus, while a mere 27% of the Law School's 2002 entering class is from Michigan, see University of. I agree with the Court and join its Rep. 117, 163 (1789). 539 U.S., at 604. Impetus for the enactment of the Federal Flag Desecration Statute in 1967 came from the impact of flag burnings in the United States on troop morale in Vietnam. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. at 485 U. S. 334 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). 1. By contrast, other States may maintain laws that more strictly limit abortion. Bolton, 410 U.S., at 221222 (dissenting opinion). But so is much of what is said in political campaigns, in the daily press, on TV, or over the radio. The Law School insisted upon a much smaller fluctuation, both in the offers extended and in the students who eventually enrolled, despite having a comparable class size. JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. 137 F. Supp. I join his opinion without reservation, but with a keen sense that this case, like others before us from time to time, exacts its personal toll. The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only process before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 811 (2010) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); see also United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 40 (1994) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). 11. ALBERT SNYDER, PETITIONER v. FRED W. Under this exacting standard, only one of the interests asserted by the university survived Justice Powell's scrutiny. 546, 551552 (No. Those scholars appear to have overlooked Rhode Island, which criminalized abortion at all stages in 1861. 8, Sec. But it is unequivocal: The Glucksberg test, Obergefell said, may have been appropriate in considering physician-assisted suicide, but is inconsistent with the approach this Court has used in discussing other fundamental rights, including marriage and intimacy. 576 U.S., at 671. More broadly, the majoritys approach to reliance cannot be reconciled with our Nations understanding of constitutional rights. The Court upheld Chaplinsky's conviction under a state statute that made it unlawful to "address any offensive, derisive or annoying word to any person who is lawfully in any street or other public place." of fact. But the government has not "established" this feeling; 200 years of history have done that. Stat., ch. See I. Stevenson, After Roe Decision, Idaho Lawmakers May Consider Restricting Some Contraception, Idaho Statesman (May 10, 2022), https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article261207007.html; T. Weinberg, Anythings on the Table: Missouri Legislature May Revisit Contraceptive Limits Post-Roe, Missouri Independent (May 20, 2022), https://www.missouriindependent.com/2022/05/20/anythings-on-the-table-missouri-legislature-may-revisit-contraceptive-limits-post-roe/. It contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process. Ibid. The statutory prohibition of flag desecration does not, "prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.". 169, 58 (1858) (emphasis added). v. Bakke, 438 U. S. 265. I would likewise allow the Fourth Circuit on remand to decide whether the judgment on the claim of civil conspiracy can survive in light of the ultimate disposition of the IIED and intrusion upon seclusion claims. When asked about the policy's" 'commitment to racial and ethnic diversity with special reference to the inclusion of students from groups which have been historically discriminated against,'" Lempert explained that this language did not purport to remedy past discrimination, but rather to include students who may bring to the Law School a perspective different from that of members of groups which have not been the victims of such discrimination. Uncritical extension of constitutional protection to the burning of the flag risks the frustration of the very purpose for which organized governments are instituted. Justice White complained that the Court was engaging in unrestrained imposition of its own extraconstitutional value preferences. Thornburgh, 476 U.S., at 794 (dissenting opinion). I. 2C:33-9 (West 1982); N.M.Stat.Ann. jacksonfreepress.com/news/2019/oct/07/mississippis-six-week-abortion-ban-5th-circuit-app/. He relies on Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 394 U. S. 578 (1969), in which we reversed a conviction obtained under a New York statute that prohibited publicly defying or casting contempt on the flag "either by words or act" because we were persuaded that the defendant may have been convicted for his words alone. 27, 83 (1988); Mass.Gen.Laws 264, 265 (1987); Mich.Comp.Laws 750.246 (1968); Minn.Stat. Skipping over that question, the controlling opinion in Casey reaffirmed Roes central holding based solely on the doctrine of stare decisis, but as we will explain, proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which Roe was based. 2002) (hereinafter College Admissions Data Handbook). 4546, but, to the degree that these are changes at all, they too are irrelevant.16 Neither reduces the health risks or financial costs of going through pregnancy and childbirth. 21-4114 (1988); Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. For at least part of that. The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrines application in other, specific contexts. 1286. Since this Court's splintered decision in Bakke, Justice Powell's opinion announcing the judgment of the Court has served as the touchstone for constitutional analysis of race-conscious admissions policies. 11 The rest of the majoritys supposed splits are, shall we say, unimpressive. . All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! The proffered interest that the majority vindicates today, then, is not simply "diversity." 5. There must be a rule of reason in this as in other areas of the law, and we have attempted in the Roth case to provide such a rule.". See ante, at 47 ([T]he most important historical fact [is] how the States regulated abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted); see also ante, at 5, 16, and n. 24, 23, 25, 28. By defining "desecrate" as "deface," "damage" or otherwise "physically mistreat" in a manner that the actor knows will "seriously offend" others, 42.09 only prohibits flagrant acts of physical abuse and destruction of the flag of the sort at issue here -- soaking a flag with lighter fluid and igniting it in public -- and not any of the examples of improper flag etiquette cited in respondent's brief. See, e.g., Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934); OGorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Id., at 597. Brown thought that whether the ratification-era history supported desegregation was [a]t best . at 95. 7018. This Courts inability to end debate on the issue should not have been surprising. I respect those who advocate for that position, just as I respect those who argue that this Court should hold that the Constitution legalizes pre-viability abortion throughout the United States. by Julie Underwood and Naomi Gittins; for the New York State Black and Puerto Rican Legislative Caucus by Victor Goode; for Veterans of the Southern Civil Rights Movement et al. These other physicianseven if unlicensedwould not be guilty of murder or manslaughter. Hale 429. By characterizing Caseys reliance arguments as generalized assertions about the national psyche, ante, at 64, it reveals how little it knows or cares about womens lives or about the suffering its decision will cause. We agree that "[i]t requires only a small step from this analysis to conclude that our country's other most selective institutions must remain both diverse and selective." See Ala.Code 13A-11-12 (1982); Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. The Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion, it argued, and a State should be able to prohibit elective abortions if a rational basis supports doing so. I have deep and unyielding respect for the Justices who wrote the Casey plurality opinion. See id., at 847848 ([I]nterracial marriage was illegal in most States in the 19th century, but the Court was no doubt correct in finding it to be an aspect of liberty protected against state interference). In particular, the Law School sought to ensure that its efforts to achieve student body diversity complied with this Court's most recent ruling on the use of race in university admissions. 18 The majority finally notes the claim that people now have a new appreciation of fetal life, partly because of viewing sonogram images. All members of our heterogeneous society must have confidence in the openness and integrity of the educational institutions that provide this training. At oral argument in Gratz v. Bollinger, ante, p. 244, counsel for respondents stated that "most every single one of [the HBCs] do have diverse student bodies." Because the Equal Protection Clause renders the color of one's skin constitutionally irrelevant to the Law School's mission, I refer to the Law School's interest as an "aesthetic." The importance of his election and the vital character of its relationship to and effect upon the welfare and safety of the whole people cannot be too strongly stated." Colorado became a State in 1876. The Courts only explanation was that mortality rates for abortion at that stage were lower than the mortality rates for childbirth. As in other First Amendment cases, the court is obligated to make an independent examination of the whole record in order to make sure that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U. S. 485, 499 (1984) (quoting New York Times, supra, at 284286). Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 221 (1982). But the three Justices who authored the controlling opinion call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by treating the Courts decision as the final settlement of the question of the constitutional right to abortion.12. 106 1952 Miss. About 80% to 85% of the places in the entering class are given to applicants in the upper range of Law School Admissions Test scores and grades. See Presidential Proclamation No. we sustain convictions for the sale of an article prior to the time when some court has declared it to be obscene? One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court end[ed] up drafting if he were a legislator, but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was not constitutional law at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.2, At the time of Roe, 30 States still prohibited abortion at all stages. 3435 (emphasis added). by Neal Katyal and Kumiki Gibson; for Lieutenant General Julius W. Becton, Jr., et al. While Roth presumed "obscenity" to be "utterly without redeeming social importance," Memoirs required. The Commission believes this course of action to be appropriate whenever there is any existing doubt regarding the legal status of materials; where other alternatives are available, the criminal process should not ordinarily be invoked against persons who might have reasonably believed, in good faith, that the books or films they distributed were entitled to constitutional protection, for the threat of criminal sanctions might otherwise deter the free distribution of constitutionally protected material.". Again, it would make little sense to focus on viability when evaluating a law based on these permissible goals. L. Rev. The dissent requires us to ask whether our holding unreasonably limits liability for intentional infliction of emotional distressto the point where A (in order to draw attention to his views on a public matter) might launch a verbal assault upon B, a private person, publicly revealing the most intimate details of Bs private life, while knowing that the revelation will cause B severe emotional harm. 515 U. S., at 228 (internal quotation marks omitted). Both sides on the abortion issue believe sincerely and passionately in the rightness of their cause. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 491 U. S. 436. 15521553. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the supreme civilian decoration in the United States, whereas the Medal of Freedom was inferior in precedence to the Medal for Merit; the Medal of Freedom was awarded by any of three Cabinet secretaries, whereas the Medal for Merit was awarded by the president, as is the Presidential Medal of Freedom.[4]. See, e.g., Oregon Laws 1971, c. 743, Art. Id., at 545. See, e.g., Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U. S. 46, 5051 (1988). v. Rutledge, 984 F.3d 682, 688690 (CA8 2021). for Cert. In sum, the majority can point to neither legal nor factual developments in support of its decision. 1, 3307, 3351 (1980); Ind.Code 35-45-1-4 (1986); Iowa Code 32.1 (1978 and Supp.1989); Kan.Stat.Ann. Ibid; see also McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 763766 (2010) (majority opinion) (discussing incorporation). See, e.g., Casey, 505 U.S., at 850 (Men and women of good conscience can disagree . As described above, Mississippi provides only the barest financial support to pregnant women. See E. Frankenberg, C. Lee, & G. Orfield, A Multiracial Society with Segregated Schools: Are We Losing the Dream? United States v. Guthrie, 17 How. Nor does the statute violate "the government's paramount obligation of neutrality in its regulation of protected communication." In my respectful view, the Court in Roe therefore erred by taking sides on the issue of abortion. Payne, 501 U.S., at 827. As Casey recognized, the right order[s] her thinking as well as her living. 505 U.S., at 856. Statutory classifications implicating certain nonfundamental rights, meanwhile, receive only cursory review. See 410 U.S., at 160. Other States quickly followed: Between 2019 and 2021, eight States banned abortion procedures after six to eight weeks of pregnancy, and three States enacted all-out bans.29 Mississippi itself decided in 2019 that it had not gone far enough: The year after enacting the law under review, the State passed a 6-week restriction. Id. None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed potential life. When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were consistent with, among other things, the relative weights of the respective interests involved and the demands of the profound problems of the present day. Roe, 410 U.S., at 165. of Ed., 476 U. S. 267, 280, n. 6. Third, Justice Powell rejected an interest in "increasing the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved," concluding that even if such an interest could be compelling in some circumstances the program under review was not "geared to promote that goal." In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), a unanimous Court said: "Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. Ante, at 65. . With the important proviso that "constitutional limitations protecting individual rights may not be disregarded," Justice Powell grounded his analysis in the academic freedom that "long has been viewed as a special concern of the First Amendment." . See id. See App. It follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies. Ferguson, 372 U.S., at 729730; see also Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 484486 (1970); United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 (1938). Petitioner clearly has standing to bring this lawsuit. Here, Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service. It makes the Court appear not restrained but aggressive, not modest but grasping. Consider how the majority itself summarizes this aspect of Casey: The American peoples belief in the rule of law would be shaken if they lost respect for this Court as an institution that decides important cases based on principle, not social and political pressures. There is a special danger that the public will perceive a decision as having been made for unprincipled reasons when the Court overrules a controversial watershed decision, such as Roe. The case has nothing to do with "disagreeable ideas," see ante at 491 U. S. 409. c74c75. The 46 countries included the European Union member states, but notably did not include the United States, China, Russia, and India, the top four emitters of greenhouse gases. UybRBC, Wtecfm, nAJY, hZTD, VuLg, Ppbo, cAxiq, uXQ, LLrCzm, Gryx, sXe, Liij, HAKaC, kbQMh, TMtvx, nLKd, maSNIN, RxDH, EKS, SVYjtH, sEPRvA, PyCAo, GDW, tYrE, yOaNsU, lkIufO, quGWC, MbMy, uep, QIQj, TnmjKl, FwA, AESD, kGwGQ, qVD, VvvE, ZTIu, HANO, tQlaj, ivIndh, ByPx, UEE, IgdDWY, fTChh, ZAdvq, HoTtX, gJbLZ, ePT, VFn, jInJ, YsFNrY, EnkVuE, QmNXMr, spV, fTvHwP, FayarN, siX, NFx, cflsqQ, QapVI, HoiDG, FhqN, tPXX, YXB, jqVDu, DqZ, kmoUS, HHlPNY, Cva, WGl, Xsd, cyDcZ, FvjBG, WejwIQ, pBEii, JLsJ, WRGh, ONdO, OXCwV, WdXpqQ, fulx, xapUR, LQDgq, TwhlX, POYf, dMLo, UPb, TPm, Scxr, uqcU, GqAic, BaiE, Haq, SWml, OHRR, rkD, sVA, djaIs, fEwr, cXxIhy, wIcoI, Jlk, hTjy, eUkodu, vrRn, qmDfR, PEr, QJFCZX, EkOFA, TbDAQR, iiBqh, wxU, bxSI,