The Dispatch: More from CWR...

The Supreme Court and the mysteries of reviews, rulings, and packing

It is often said that the Supreme Court now has a six-member pro-life majority. So why hasn’t Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization been accepted for review?

The front façade of the Supreme Court of the United States in Washington, DC.(Image: Ian Hutchinson/

Imagine trying to follow a game whose rules and objectives you don’t know and whose players aren’t letting on. That is approximately how things now stand where the Supreme Court, President Joe Biden, and the issue of abortion are concerned. And if that sounds complicated, that’s because it is.

Start with the court. Since early last fall, it has had before it a petition to review a case that many people believe provides a good place for it to begin its long-awaited scaling back of decisions like 1973’s Roe v. Wade and 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey that opened the floodgates to legalized abortion.

The case—Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is its name—involves a Mississippi law to ban virtually all abortions after the 15th week of pregnancy. In December 2019 the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling overturning the law, and the Supreme Court is being asked to review the appeals court’s decision.

Week after week since then, the court has listed Dobbs among the cases the justices would be looking at in the next closed-door conference at which they would decide which cases they would—or wouldn’t—review. And week after week, when the orders list was published, Dobbs has been missing, neither accepted nor rejected.

It is often said that the Supreme Court now has a six-member pro-life majority—Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. But only four justices’ votes are needed for a case to be accepted for review. Why hasn’t Dobbs made the grade yet with at least four of those six?

At this point, turn to the other player in this game, President Biden. During last year’s campaign, pro-abortion activists in his party pressured candidate Biden to say that, if elected, he would support court-packing legislation to expand the membership of the court by adding enough new justices to out-vote the pro-life majority.

But Biden, apparently not keen on court-packing, instead promised to create a commission to consider proposals for changing the way court operates. Court-packing will be among them, but so will other ideas like 18-year non-renewable terms for justices.

Biden has now established the commission, a 36-member body of law professors and retired judges, and given it six months to do its job. There is no telling what it will say—if anything—about court-packing or anything else.

Just here it is important to note another player who joined this game only recently—Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. In a two-hour lecture at the Harvard law school, the 82-year-old Breyer, one of the court’s liberals and a reliable pro-choice vote, strongly opposed court packing, saying such blatant politicizing would undermine public willingness to accept the court’s decisions. In view of this opposition from an eminent pro-choice source, Biden has even stronger grounds for saying no to ‘packing,’ when and if the need arises.

Against this background, the pro-lifers on the court would seem be safe in accepting Dobbs or some other abortion-related case for review, without the threat of court-packing hanging over their heads. If they do, that could mean oral argument in the fall and a decision before the summer of 2022.

It will be apparent that much of the foregoing is conjecture. But conjecture is the most anyone can do concerning the outcome of a game whose rules and objectives are known only to its players—and they aren’t talking.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Russell Shaw 288 Articles
Russell Shaw was secretary for public affairs of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference from 1969 to 1987. He is the author of 20 books, including Nothing to Hide, American Church: The Remarkable Rise, Meteoric Fall, and Uncertain Future of Catholicism in America, Eight Popes and the Crisis of Modernity, and, most recently, The Life of Jesus Christ (Our Sunday Visitor, 2021).


  1. Biden doesn’t want his legacy to include making the Supreme Court a political entity. He has submitted his presidency to the Far Left, but one hopes that court-packing isn’t included in the power grab by those who would “fundamentally change the United States of America.” Gaining the power of all three branches of government would definitely achieve this Barack Obama goal. The Left is currently promoting the false narrative that the United States is systemically racist in order to divide Americans to achieve their goals. This attempt at racial division began in 2008, and is being promoted, even though the narrative has no validity in the reality of our current society. I am tired of hearing about “Jim Crow on steroids,” which is an insult to the people who actually experienced Jim Crow laws in the past — implemented by Democrats by the way. The agenda that would destroy (by fundamentally changing) our country needs to be strongly opposed! Packing the Supreme Court is only one of the methods they are attempting to use to finish our country as we know it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.