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

Paragraph 9 of 9

Sentence 2 of 4

The next sentence is single assertion—a judgment rather than a supportable claim—and there’s a little humor in the subtext:

“The Court must not fall prey to such an unprincipled approach.”

This refers to the previous sentence and the idea that Lochner v. New York and other decisions were based on the preferences of the Justices rather than sound legal practice. It’s an idea that I need to examine more to determine for myself how solid the point is.

Here’s a version of the sentence that I think everyone can agree with:

“The Court must not fall prey to [. . .] an unprincipled approach.”

The Court needs to act on principle. That’s uncontroversial. The question then is—what principles? The principles on display in Lochner are apparently not the correct ones. Some argue that the Dobbs Court has also applied inappropriate principles. That’s a line of inquiry that the dissent takes up, and one that needs to be taken seriously.

The humor in the sentence is in the word “such.” My guess is that the Court intends this to mean “in this manner” or something like that, but with “such” being frequently (mis-)used as an intensifier it can also read like “to this degree.” The implication being that some absence of principle is okay, but not this much.

Anyone else amused by that? No? Just me?

Right. So while this sentence is a simple one, and mostly uncontroversial by itself, it’s entirely reliant on the previous sentence for its truth value, so I’m leaving it undetermined:

• “The Court must not fall prey to such an unprincipled approach.”