Litigants argue by analogy, extending a precedent’s reasoning to a new factual setting.

Evidence

Those who were attacking the laws argued that the restrictions on abortion resembled the restrictions on contraception invalidated in Griswold and Eisenstadt, because they intruded on a woman’s decision whether to bear a child and therefore violated her constitutional right to privacy. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2534

Categorization

• DEFINE: Concrete example of reasoning by analogy, the core judicial interpretive technique the course examines.