Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

34  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

Opinion of the Court 

“Stare  decisis  is  the  preferred  course  because  it  pro­
motes  the  evenhanded,  predictable,  and  consistent  devel­
opment  of  legal  principles,  fosters  reliance  on  judicial 
decisions,  and  contributes  to  the  actual  and  perceived 
integrity of the judicial process.”  Payne v. Tennessee, 501 
U. S. 808, 827 (1991).  We will not overturn a past decision 
unless  there  are  strong  grounds  for  doing  so.    United 
States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 
843,  855–856  (1996);  Citizens  United,  558  U. S.,  at  377 
(ROBERTS, C. J., concurring).  But as we have often recog­
nized,  stare  decisis  is  “ ‘not  an  inexorable  command.’ ”  
Pearson  v.  Callahan,  555  U. S.  223,  233  (2009);  see  also 
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003); State Oil Co. 
v.  Khan,  522  U. S.  3,  20  (1997);  Agostini  v.  Felton,  521 
U. S.  203,  235  (1997);  Seminole  Tribe  of  Fla.  v.  Florida, 
517 U. S. 44, 63 (1996); Payne, supra, at 828. 

The  doctrine  “is  at  its  weakest  when  we  interpret  the
Constitution  because  our  interpretation  can  be  altered
only  by  constitutional  amendment  or  by  overruling  our
prior decisions.”  Agostini, supra, at 235.  And stare decisis 
applies  with  perhaps  least  force  of  all  to  decisions  that
wrongly  denied  First  Amendment  rights:  “This  Court  has 
not  hesitated  to  overrule  decisions  offensive  to  the  First 
Amendment  (a  fixed  star  in  our  constitutional  constella­
tion, if there is one).”  Federal Election Comm’n v. Wiscon-
sin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449, 500 (2007) (Scalia, J.,
concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment)  (internal
quotation marks omitted); see also Citizens United, supra, 
at  362–365  (overruling  Austin,  494  U. S.  652);  Barnette, 
319  U. S.,  at  642  (overruling  Minersville  School  Dist.  v. 
Gobitis, 310 U. S. 586 (1940)). 

Our  cases  identify  factors  that  should  be  taken  into
account  in  deciding  whether  to  overrule  a  past  decision.
Five  of  these  are  most  important  here:  the  quality  of 
Abood’s  reasoning,  the  workability  of  the  rule  it  estab­
lished,  its  consistency  with  other  related  decisions,  devel­