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

Paragraph 7 of 8

Sentence 3 of 3

Two claims in this sentence:

“Our cases have attempted to provide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2018) (slip op., at 34–35); Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2020) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 7–9).”

The claims:

• “Our cases have attempted to provide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled.”
• “[T]hey have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision.”

I hope the citations in this sentence, or the material going forward, supports these claims. They both need support before I can determine their truth values.

Minor grammatical point: the cases have not attempted to do anything. Cases have no agency. That sentence needs to be fixed.

These claims are undetermined:

• “Our cases have attempted to provide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled.”
• “[T]hey have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision.”