Dissent 1: Rehnquist (joined by White): A. "Liberty" not found in the Bill of Rights is not absolutely protected because RULE: the correct test for social and economic regulation is whether the law has "rational relation to a valid state objective." B. The majority ignores that rule. The trimester scheme is "judicial legislation" and historical legal prohibitions show abortion is "not so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental" because the drafters of the 14th Amendment did not intend to limit the states' ability to regulate abortion. Dissent 2: White: A. There is "Nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judgment," so the majority’s decision must be a "raw exercise of judicial power" that is "improvident and extravagant." B. The decision whether to allow abortions or not should be left to the people of the states and their legislatures—in other words, the political process.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinion: You don’t need to spend too much time on this part other than the pinpoint the concurring or dissenting judge’s main point of contention with the majority opinion and rationale. Concurring and dissenting opinions hold lots of law professor Socratic Method fodder, and you can be ready by including this part in your case brief.

Concurri ng and/or Diss enting Opinio ns. Concurring and dissenting opinions (a.k.a. “concu rrence s” and “dissents”) are opinions by judges w ho did not se e entire ly e ye -to-ey e with the other judges of the court, and wish to express a slightly or even dramatically diff erent view of the case. In g en er al , a co nc ur ri ng op in io n i s a n o pi ni on by a judge who would have reached the same result as the majority, but f or a different reason. Dissenting opinions are opinions by judges who disagree with the majority’s result entirely. I n most cases, dissenting opinions try to persuade the reader that the majority ’s decision was simply incorre ct.