Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 54.0

2 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

Utah was still a Territory because “the right of trial by jury 
in  suits  at  common  law  appl[ied]  to  the  Territories  of  the
United States.”  Id., at 346.  The Court then stated that this 
right “made it impossible to deprive him of his liberty ex-
cept by [a] unanimous verdict.”  Id., at 355; see also id., at 
351, 353. 

The  Court  has  repeatedly  reaffirmed  the  Sixth  Amend-
ment’s unanimity requirement.  In Patton v. United States, 
281  U. S.  276  (1930),  the  Court  stated  that  the  Sixth 
Amendment protects the right “that the verdict should be 
unanimous,”  id.,  at  288.  In  Andres  v.  United  States,  333 
U. S.  740  (1948),  the  Court  repeated  that  “[u]nanimity  in 
jury verdicts is required” by the Sixth Amendment, id., at 
748.  And in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 404 (1972), five
Justices agreed that “the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of 
trial by jury embraces a guarantee that the verdict of the
jury must be unanimous,” id., at 414 (Stewart, J., joined by 
Brennan and Marshall, JJ., dissenting); see also Johnson v. 
Louisiana, 406 U. S. 356, 371 (1972) (Powell, J., concurring)
(explaining views in Apodaca and its companion case); id., 
at 382–383 (Douglas, J., joined by Brennan and Marshall, 
JJ., dissenting) (same).  We have accepted this interpreta-
tion of the Sixth Amendment in recent cases.  See Southern 
Union  Co.  v.  United  States,  567  U. S.  343,  356  (2012); 
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U. S. 296, 301 (2004); Apprendi 
v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, 477 (2000). 

B 

The question then becomes whether these decisions are 
entitled  to  stare  decisis  effect.  As  I  have  previously  ex-
plained, “the Court’s typical formulation of the stare decisis 
standard does not comport with our judicial duty under Ar-
ticle  III  because  it  elevates  demonstrably  erroneous  deci-
sions—meaning decisions outside the realm of permissible 
interpretation—over the text of the Constitution and other
duly  enacted  federal  law.”    Gamble  v.  United  States,  587