Connection lost
Server error
MAHER v. ROE Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a state’s refusal to provide Medicaid funding for non-therapeutic abortions, while funding childbirth expenses, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as indigency is not a suspect class and the policy does not impinge upon the fundamental right to an abortion.
Legal Significance: This case established that the constitutional right to an abortion is a negative right against government interference, not a positive right to government funding. States may make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion and implement that choice through the allocation of public funds.
MAHER v. ROE Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A Connecticut Welfare Department regulation limited state Medicaid funding for first-trimester abortions to those deemed “medically necessary.” The state continued to provide funding for the medical expenses associated with pregnancy and childbirth. Appellees, two indigent women who were unable to obtain a physician’s certificate of medical necessity for an abortion, challenged the regulation. They argued that by funding childbirth but not non-therapeutic abortions, the state violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court agreed, holding that the regulation infringed upon the fundamental right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade by impermissibly weighting the woman’s choice against abortion. The District Court found no compelling state interest to justify this infringement, noting that abortion is less expensive than childbirth, and enjoined the state from enforcing the regulation. The state appealed to the Supreme Court.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to fund non-therapeutic, elective abortions for indigent women if it chooses to pay for the medical expenses of childbirth?
No. The Connecticut regulation does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to fund non-therapeutic, elective abortions for indigent women if it chooses to pay for the medical expenses of childbirth?
Conclusion
This case significantly clarified the scope of *Roe v. Wade*, establishing that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aut
Legal Rule
A state's policy of providing public funding for childbirth while denying it Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est labo
Legal Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeded under the Equal Protection Clause. It first determined Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Constitution does not require states to fund nontherapeutic abortions for
