West Virginia v. B. P. J. · ¶106
The plaintiffs counter with arguments and studies of their own. But in assessing state and federal laws passed under circumstances of “medical and scientific uncertainty,” this Court has often said that the Judiciary must be cautious about swooping in and invalidating laws. Skrmetti, 605 U. S., at 524 (quotation marks omitted). The legislatures, we have emphasized, maintain “wide discretion to pass legislation” in those circumstances. Ibid. (quotation marks omitted). For good reason. Especially on medical and scientific matters where there is serious debate and disagreement, it can be difficult for courts to meaningfully evaluate the considered policy judgments of the lawmakers who have scrutinized the medical evidence and scientific data before them, and have made a reasoned decision. See ibid.; cf. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U. S. 180, 195–196 (1997). When there are…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.