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

Paragraph 5 of 8

Sentence 2 of 2

This looks like one claim:

“Barnette stands out because nothing had changed during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.”

And it seems like something that can’t be determined in a quick look. Three years passed between those decisions, and even though this claim is probably true I’ll hold off for now.

This claim is undetermined:

• “Barnette stands out because nothing had changed during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.”