This article critiques the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization for its unprincipled and superficial use of foreign law sources to overturn Roe v. Wade. It explains the surprising use of foreign law by conservative justices who had previously opposed all use of non-US law in decision-making. And it shows how international and foreign law can be used on by either side to both expand and retrench rights. The article thus argues for a more principled framework for when and how to use international law sources including a more contextual analysis of that law.
Sital Kalantry, Foreign Law in Dobbs: The Need for a Principled Framework, 14 ConLawNOW 37 (2023)