In Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California, the Supreme Court considered whether a state can sue another state in federal court for violating its rights under the Constitution. The case arose when Arizona sued San Francisco over an ordinance that prohibited city contractors from doing business with companies located in states that had passed laws restricting access to abortion services or other reproductive health care options. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that Arizona could not bring such a suit against San Francisco because it was barred by sovereign immunity—the doctrine which prevents one state from suing another without its consent. The majority opinion reasoned that allowing states to sue each other would upset the balance between federalism and comity among states established by our nation’s founders and undermine their ability to resolve disputes through negotiation rather than litigation. Justice Breyer wrote separately to emphasize his view that this ruling did not mean all claims brought by one state against another were necessarily barred; he argued instead for more nuanced approaches based on context and history as well as modern realities like economic interdependence between states

In the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California, Justice Breyer argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution. He argued that the majority opinion was too broad in its interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Spending Clause, which gives Congress the power to spend money for the general welfare. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which gives Congress the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying out its enumerated powers. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Supremacy Clause, which gives Congress the power to preempt state laws. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all powers not delegated to the federal government to the states. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment, which limits the power of the federal government to sue states in federal court. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the equal protection of the laws. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the right to vote. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Twenty-fourth Amendment, which prohibits states from imposing a poll tax. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Twenty-sixth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the right to vote on account of age. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from denying any person the right to vote on account of race. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act, which requires states to allow citizens to register to vote. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Help America Vote Act, which requires states to provide uniform and nondiscriminatory voting procedures. He argued that the majority opinion was wrong in its interpretation of the Constitution and that the decision should be reversed.