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

Paragraph 8 of 11

Sentence 2 of 5

More citation than claim in this sentence:

“This Court has long disfavored arguments based on alleged legislative motives. See, e.g., Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U. S. 277, 292 (2000) (plurality opinion); Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 652 (1994); United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 (1968); Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 455 (1931) (collecting cases).”

The claim:

• “This Court has long disfavored arguments based on alleged legislative motives.”

Here are the cases cited:

• Erie v. Pap’s A. M., 529 U. S. 277, 292 (2000) (plurality opinion)
• Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U. S. 622, 652 (1994)
• United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 383 (1968)
• Arizona v. California, 283 U. S. 423, 455 (1931) (collecting cases)

I’m still not sure what qualifies as “long,” but the Arizona case in 1931 was a while ago. Ninety-one years is a good chunk of the history of the court, but it also isn’t even half of that run. Arizona page 455 lists other cases as precedent, though, and those are as follows:

• McCray v. United States, 195 U. S. 27, 195 U. S. 53-59;
• Weber v. Freed, 239 U. S. 325, 239 U. S. 329-330;
• Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332, 243 U. S. 358-359;
• United States v. Doremus, 249 U. S. 86, 249 U. S. 93-94;
• Dakota Central Telephone v. South Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 250 U. S. 187;
• Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 251 U. S. 161;
• Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U. S. 180, 255 U. S. 210.

And page 455 directs us also to footnote 7, which reads:

“Similarly, no inquiry may be made concerning the motives or wisdom of a state legislature acting within its proper powers. United States v. Des Moines Nav. & Ry. Co., 142 U. S. 510, 142 U. S. 544; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. Co. v. Matthews, 174 U. S. 96, 174 U. S. 102; Calder v. Michigan, 218 U. S. 591, 218 U. S. 598; Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis, 240 U. S. 342, 240 U. S. 357, 240 U. S. 366. Compare O’Gorman & Young, Inc. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 282 U. S. 251, 282 U. S. 258.”

I think it’s safe to assume that all of these cases are earlier than Arizona, and if it comes to it I’ll look into which might be earliest so we can establish what Dobbs means by “long.” I’m going to grant that “long” applies here unless it becomes a problem, so this claim is true:

• “This Court has long disfavored arguments based on alleged legislative motives.”