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

Paragraph 7 of 11

Sentence 1 of 2

This is another sentence with two variations of one claim:

“Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents (see Brief for Respondents 21) tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by suggesting that they were enacted for illegitimate reasons.”

The claims:

• “Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents [. . .] tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”
• “Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents [. . .] tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by suggesting that they were enacted for illegitimate reasons.”

It might seem like a small thing, but I feel like these two claims can be meaningfully dealt with separately. One claim addresses what the respondents argued and the other, the full sentence, addresses the strategy Dobbs Court identifies in their argument.

Just identifying what amicus brief is being cited here is going to take some work. The docket is full of them. This is a pretty minor point, and I’ll do that work after I’ve addressed some more compelling elements of this decision.

These are undetermined:

• “Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents [. . .] tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.”
• “Another amicus brief relied upon by respondents [. . .] tries to dismiss the significance of the state criminal statutes that were in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted by suggesting that they were enacted for illegitimate reasons.”