From CNN's video coverage of US Attorney General Merrick Garland announcement of its lawsuit against the state of Texas:
Q: ...several GOP lawmakers who said that they will follow Texas’ lead, and I was wondering if you expect DOJ to be involved in similar actions against other states? Like would it be a leap to say this could be one of several similar actions?
A: Well as I said in my remarks, the risk here, the greater risk here, the additional and further risk here is that other state will follow similar models, with respect to not only this constitutional right, but theoretically against any constitutional right, in any other state.
So if another state uses the same kinds of provisions to deprive its citizens of their constitutional rights, and in particular to deprive their citizens the ability to seek immediate review, we will bring the same kind of lawsuit.
This September 1, 2021 US Supreme court document contains three dissenting opinions in the court's decision not to block the Texas law. Two of them call out an attempt by the law to delay, avoid, or insulate itself from judicial review.
Justice Sotomayor: Because the Court’s failure to act rewards tactics designed to avoid judicial review and inflicts significant harm on the applicants and on women seeking abortions in Texas, I dissent.
[...] Instead, the Court has rewarded the State’s effort to delay federal review of a plainly unconstitutional statute, enacted in disregard of the Court’s precedents, through procedural entanglements of the State’s own creation.
Justice Kagan: The Court thus rewards Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from judicial review by deputizing private parties to carry out unconstitutional restrictions on the State’s behalf.
So it seems that a law's exposure to vs avoidance of judicial review is an important issue to some.
Question: Are there constitutional arguments for preventing/avoiding judicial review of state law in some scenarios? Are there any historical examples of this?
I'm not asking if this particular law does or doesn't, but whether preventing a law from judicial review has a constitutionally based argument. Historically, has it been considered a given that US state laws should be subject to judicial review, or have there been notable cases where it wasn't?