Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-1041_0861.pdf
Page Number: 47

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

23 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

“expose them to the fire of public criticism,” id., at 187. 

But  this  argument,  which  boils  down  to  a  policy  judg-
ment of questionable validity, cannot vitiate the constitu-
tional  allocation  of  powers.  The  Judicial  Branch  is  sepa-
rate  from  the  political  branches  for  a  reason:  It  has  the 
obligation to apply the law to cases and controversies that
come  before  it,  and  concerns  about  the  popular  esteem  of
individual judges—or even the Judiciary as a whole—have
no  place  in  that  analysis.    Our  system  of  Government
could  not  long  survive  absent  adherence  to  the  written
Constitution that formed it. 

* 

* 

* 

Although  on  the  surface  these  cases  require  only  a 
straightforward  application  of  the  APA,  closer  scrutiny
reveals serious constitutional questions lurking beneath.  I 
have “acknowledge[d] the importance of stare decisis to the 
stability of our Nation’s legal system.”  “But stare decisis is 
only an ‘adjunct’ of our duty as judges to decide by our best
lights what the Constitution means.”  McDonald v. Chicago, 
561  U. S.  742,  812  (2010)  (THOMAS,  J.,  concurring  in
part  and  concurring  in  judgment)  (citation  omitted).    By
my best lights, the entire line of precedent beginning with 
Seminole Rock raises serious constitutional questions and
should be reconsidered in an appropriate case.