Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 298.0

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 236 (1998)

253

Souter, J., concurring

main binding precedent until we see ﬁt to reconsider them,
regardless of whether subsequent cases have raised doubts
about their continuing vitality. Rodriguez de Quijas v.
Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989).
Once we have decided to reconsider a particular rule, how-
ever, we would be remiss if we did not consider the consist-
ency with which it has been applied in practice. Swift & Co.
v. Wickham, 382 U. S. 111, 116 (1965); see also Brown Shoe
Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, 307 (1962). This consid-
eration, when combined with our analysis of the legal issue
in question, convinces us the contrary holding of House v.
Mayo cannot stand.

We hold this Court has jurisdiction under § 1254(1) to re-
view denials of applications for certiﬁcates of appealability
by a circuit judge or a panel of a court of appeals. The por-
tion of House v. Mayo holding this Court lacks statutory cer-
tiorari jurisdiction over denials of certiﬁcates of probable
cause is overruled.
In light of the position asserted by the
Solicitor General in the brief for the United States ﬁled Au-
gust 18, 1997, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is va-
cated, and the case is remanded for further consideration
consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Souter, concurring.

I would be content to decide this case on the authority of
House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42 (1945) (per curiam), that
common-law certiorari is available to review the denial of
the certiﬁcate, leaving House’s precarious future for another
day when its precedential value might have to be faced
squarely. But that course would command no more than a
minority of one, and there is good reason to deny it even that
support. House’s holding on what may be “ ‘in’ the court of
appeals,” id., at 44, was virtually unreasoned, and the Court
correctly notes our subsequent practice of honoring this rule
in the breach. Given the weakness of the precedent, the