Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 44.0

10 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

about the severity of the jurisprudential or real-world con-
sequences caused by the erroneous decision and, therefore, 
whether the decision is worth overruling.  In that regard,
some judges may think that the negative consequences can 
be  addressed  by  narrowing  the  precedent  (or  just  living
with it) rather than outright overruling it.  Judges may also 
disagree about how to measure the relevant reliance inter-
ests that might be affected by an overruling.  And on top of 
all of that, judges may also disagree about how to weigh and 
balance  all  of  those  competing  considerations  in  a  given 
case.5 

This case illustrates that point.  No Member of the Court 
contends  that  the  result  in  Apodaca  is  correct.  But  the 
Members of the Court vehemently disagree about whether 
to overrule Apodaca. 

II 

Applying the three broad stare decisis considerations to 
this  case,  I  agree  with  the  Court’s  decision  to  overrule 
Apodaca. 

First, Apodaca is egregiously wrong.  The original mean-
ing  and  this  Court’s  precedents  establish  that  the  Sixth
Amendment requires a unanimous jury.  Ante, at 6–7; see, 
e.g.,  Patton  v.  United  States,  281  U. S.  276,  288  (1930); 
Thompson v. Utah, 170 U. S. 343, 351 (1898).  And the orig-
inal meaning and this Court’s precedents establish that the 
Fourteenth  Amendment  incorporates  the  Sixth  Amend-

—————— 

5 To  be  clear,  the  stare  decisis  issue  in  this  case  is  one  of  horizontal 
stare decisis—that is, the respect that this Court owes to its own prece-
dents and the circumstances under which this Court may appropriately
overrule a precedent.  By contrast, vertical stare decisis is absolute, as it 
must be in a hierarchical system with “one supreme Court.”  U. S. Const., 
Art III, §1.  In other words, the state courts and the other federal courts 
have  a  constitutional  obligation  to  follow  a  precedent  of  this  Court 
unless and until it is overruled by this Court.  See Rodriguez de Quijas 
v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989).