Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 43

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

9 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

Those three considerations together provide a structured
methodology and roadmap for determining whether to over-
rule an erroneous constitutional precedent.  The three con-
siderations correspond to the Court’s historical practice and
encompass the various individual factors that the Court has 
applied over the years as part of the stare decisis calculus. 
And they are consistent with the Founding understanding 
and, for example, Blackstone’s shorthand description that 
overruling is warranted when (and only when) a precedent 
is “manifestly absurd or unjust.”  1 Blackstone, Commen-
taries on the Laws of England, at 70. 

Taken together, those three considerations set a high (but 
not  insurmountable)  bar  for  overruling  a  precedent,  and
they  therefore  limit  the  number  of  overrulings  and  main-
tain stability in the law.4  Those three considerations also 
constrain judicial discretion in deciding when to overrule an
erroneous precedent.  To be sure, applying those considera-
tions is not a purely mechanical exercise, and I do not claim 
otherwise.  I  suggest  only  that  those  three  considerations 
may better structure how to consider the many traditional 
stare decisis factors. 

It is inevitable that judges of good faith applying the stare 
decisis considerations will sometimes disagree about when 
to  overrule  an  erroneous  constitutional  precedent,  as  the 
Court does in this case.  To begin with, judges may disagree 
about whether a prior decision is wrong in the first place—
and importantly, that disagreement is sometimes the real 
dispute when judges joust over stare decisis.  But even when 
judges agree that a prior decision is wrong, they may dis- 
agree about whether the decision is so egregiously wrong as
to  justify  an  overruling.  Judges  may  likewise  disagree 

—————— 

4 Another important factor that limits the number of overrulings is that 
the  Court  typically  does  not  overrule  a  precedent  unless  a  party
requests  overruling,  or  at  least  unless  the  Court  receives  briefing  and 
argument on the stare decisis question.