Talk:Hodgson v. Minnesota

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Copyright Violation edit

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article appears to be almost entirely lifted from [1], and is thus probably in violation of Wikipedia's policies on the use of copyrighted material. I'm reporting this violation. We'll probably have to delete the offending material, as this page doesn't look like it's heavily frequented. Dkostic 16:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

This material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 license [2]] and therefore is not

compatible with Wikipedia policy. I reverted it to the non-copyrighted version as per policy. Thylark 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Status after Dobbs edit

Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As with all other Supreme Court abortion cases between Roe v. Wade and Dobbs v. Jackson Women Health Organization, the infobox for this case states that it was superseded by Dobbs. I am not sure this is true.

Although states can now ban abortion completely, it does not necessarily follow that regulations that "do not further any legitimate state interest", as the Hodgson court found to be the case for Minnesota's two-parent notification law, are also constitutional, so it remains possible that this holding is still good law.

I am not aware of any state that presently has analogous laws to the one at issue in this case, but it is at least academically arguable that the "superseded by Dobbs" prompt should be removed for now. LunaticLarry (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Add topic