Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 75

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

67 

Opinion of the Court 

perceive  a  decision  as  having  been  made  for  unprincipled 
reasons  when  the  Court  overrules  a  controversial  “water-
shed” decision, such as Roe.  505 U. S., at 866–867.  A deci-
sion  overruling  Roe  would  be  perceived  as  having  been
made “under fire” and as a “surrender to political pressure,”
505 U. S., at 867, and therefore the preservation of public 
approval of the Court weighs heavily in favor of retaining 
Roe, see 505 U. S., at 869. 

This analysis starts out on the right foot but ultimately 
veers  off  course.    The  Casey  plurality  was  certainly  right
that it is important for the public to perceive that our deci-
sions are based on principle, and we should make every ef-
fort to achieve that objective by issuing opinions that care-
fully show how a proper understanding of the law leads to
the results we reach.  But we cannot exceed the scope of our 
authority under the Constitution, and we cannot allow our 
decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such 
as  concern  about  the  public’s  reaction  to  our  work.  Cf. 
Texas  v.  Johnson,  491  U. S.  397  (1989);  Brown,  347  U. S. 
483.  That is true both when we initially decide a constitu-
tional  issue  and  when  we  consider  whether  to  overrule  a 
prior decision.  As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained, “The 
Judicial  Branch  derives  its  legitimacy,  not  from  following 
public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights whether 
legislative enactments of the popular branches of Govern-
ment comport with the Constitution.  The doctrine of stare 
decisis  is  an  adjunct  of  this  duty,  and  should  be  no  more 
subject  to  the  vagaries  of  public  opinion  than  is  the  basic
judicial task.”  Casey, 505 U. S., at 963 (opinion concurring 
in judgment in part and dissenting in part).  In suggesting
otherwise, the Casey plurality went beyond this Court’s role
in our constitutional system.

The Casey plurality “call[ed] the contending sides of a na-
tional  controversy  to  end  their  national  division,”  and 
claimed the authority to impose a permanent settlement of 
the issue of a constitutional abortion right simply by saying