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

Paragraph 8 of 11

Sentence 3 of 5

Just one claim in this sentence:

“The Court has recognized that inquiries into legislative motives ‘are a hazardous matter.’ O’Brien, 391 U. S., at 383.”

That is definitely a thing that was written in O’Brien. Here’s the passage in O’Brien:

“Inquiries into congressional motives or purposes are a hazardous matter. When the issue is simply the interpretation of legislation, the Court will look to statements by legislators for guidance as to the purpose of the legislature, [Footnote 30] because the benefit to sound decisionmaking in this circumstance is thought sufficient to risk the possibility of misreading Congress’ purpose. It is entirely a different matter when we are asked to void a statute that is, under well settled criteria, constitutional on its face, on the basis of what fewer than a handful of Congressmen said about it.”

Is it enough that the quoted phrase appears in the cited source? I guess so. Or maybe not. Does a mention in one decision equate to ‘[t]he Court has recognized”? The court has asserted, but “recognized” seems to mean more—that the Court’s observation is in alignment with an objective reality. In my mind there would need to be more to establish that.

This needs more thought. I’ll call it undetermined for now:

• “The Court has recognized that inquiries into legislative motives ‘are a hazardous matter.’