As always, you can find the Dobbs v. Jackson decision here.

Paragraph 9 of 9

Sentence 1 of 4

The next paragraph starts with a sentence containing four claims:

“On occasion, when the Court has ignored the ‘[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘“respect for the teachings of history,”’ Moore, 431 U. S., at 503 (plurality opinion), it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45 (1905).

Separated into four claims:

1. “On occasion [. . .] the Court has ignored the ‘[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘respect for the teachings of history’.”
2. [W]hen the Court has ignored the “[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘respect for the teachings of history,’ [. . .] it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”
3. Lochner v. New York is discredited.
4. Lochner v. New York is characterized by “freewheeling judicial policymaking.”

It looks to me like each of these four will take some time to investigate, so they’re all likely to remain undetermined for now. I’ll take a look at the citations, though, to see if anything can be accounted for quickly.

The first claim:

“On occasion [. . .] the Court has ignored the ‘[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘respect for the teachings of history’.”

We are directed to Moore v. East Cleveland, page 503 for support for this claim:

“Appropriate limits on substantive due process come not from drawing arbitrary lines, but rather from careful “respect for the teachings of history [and] solid recognition of the basic values that underlie our society.” [Footnote 10] Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. at 381 U. S. 501 (Harlan, J., concurring). [Footnote 11] See generally Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 430 U. S. 672-674, and nn. 41, 42 (1977); Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 341 U. S. 162-163 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring); Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 198 U. S. 76 (1905) (Holmes, J., dissenting).

Yeah, it’s going to take some time to sort through all of those citations and footnotes. We’ll leave it for now. The next three claims, all connected, are supported by a vague reference to the Lochner decision, but with no specific citation or footnote. Again, that’s going to take some time.

The four claims in this sentence remain undetermined:

• “On occasion [. . .] the Court has ignored the ‘[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘respect for the teachings of history’.”
• [W]hen the Court has ignored the “[a]ppropriate limits’ imposed by ‘respect for the teachings of history,’ [. . .] it has fallen into the freewheeling judicial policymaking that characterized discredited decisions such as Lochner v. New York.”
• Lochner v. New York is discredited.
• Lochner v. New York is characterized by “freewheeling judicial policymaking.”