Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 209

62  DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION 

BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., dissenting
Appendix to opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ. 

burden);  Brandenburg  v.  Ohio,  395  U. S.  444,  447–448 
(1969) (per curiam) (holding that mere advocacy of violence 
is protected by the First Amendment, unless intended to in-
cite it or produce imminent lawlessness, and rejecting the
contrary rule in Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927),
as having been “thoroughly discredited by later decisions”); 
Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 351, 353 (1967) (recog-
nizing that the Fourth Amendment extends to material and 
communications  that  a  person  “seeks  to  preserve  as  pri-
vate,”  and  rejecting  the  more  limited  construction  articu-
lated  in  Olmstead  v.  United  States,  277  U. S.  438  (1928), 
because “we have since departed from the narrow view on
which  that  decision  rested,”  and  “the  underpinnings  of 
Olmstead . . . have been so eroded by our subsequent deci-
sions  that  the  ‘trespass’  doctrine  there  enunciated  can  no 
longer  be  regarded  as  controlling”);  Miranda  v.  Arizona, 
384 U. S. 436, 463–467, 479, n. 48 (1966) (recognizing that 
the  Fifth  Amendment  requires  certain  procedural  safe-
guards for custodial interrogation, and rejecting Crooker v. 
California, 357 U. S. 433 (1958), and Cicenia v. Lagay, 357 
U. S.  504  (1958),  which  had  already  been  undermined  by 
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964)); Malloy v. Hogan, 
378 U. S. 1, 6–9 (1964) (explaining that the Fifth Amend-
ment privilege against “self-incrimination is also protected 
by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by the 
States,” and rejecting Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78 
(1908),  in  light  of  a  “marked  shift”  in  Fifth  Amendment
precedents that had “necessarily repudiated” the prior de-
cision);  Gideon  v.  Wainwright,  372  U. S.  335,  343–345 
(1963) (acknowledging a right to counsel for indigent crim-
inal  defendants  in  state  court  under  the  Sixth  and  Four-
teenth Amendments, and overruling the earlier precedent
failing to recognize such a right, Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S.