Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 24

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

21 

Opinion of the Court 

in the same direction. 

Start with the quality of the reasoning.  Whether we look 
to the plurality opinion or Justice Powell’s separate concur-
rence, Apodaca was gravely mistaken; again, no Member of 
the Court today defends either as rightly decided.  Without 
repeating what we’ve already explained in detail, it’s just 
an implacable fact that the plurality spent almost no time
grappling with the historical meaning of the Sixth Amend-
ment’s  jury  trial  right,  this  Court’s  long-repeated  state-
ments that it demands unanimity, or the racist origins of 
Louisiana’s and Oregon’s laws.  Instead, the plurality sub-
jected  the  Constitution’s  jury  trial  right  to  an  incomplete 
functionalist analysis of its own creation for which it spared 
one paragraph.  And, of course, five Justices expressly re-
jected the plurality’s conclusion that the Sixth Amendment 
does not require unanimity.  Meanwhile, Justice Powell re-
fused to follow this Court’s incorporation precedents.  Nine 
Justices (including Justice Powell) recognized this for what 
it was; eight called it an error.
  Looking to Apodaca’s consistency with related decisions 
and recent legal developments compounds the reasons for 
concern.  Apodaca sits uneasily with 120 years of preceding
case  law.  Given  how  unmoored  it  was  from  the  start,  it 
might  seem  unlikely  that  later  developments  could  have 
done more to undermine the decision.  Yet they have.  While 
Justice Powell’s dual-track theory of incorporation was al-
ready foreclosed in 1972, some at that time still argued that 
it might have a role to play outside the realm of criminal
procedure.  Since then, the Court has held otherwise.62  Un-
til  recently,  dual-track  incorporation  attracted  at  least  a
measure  of  support  in  dissent.  But  this  Court  has  now 
roundly rejected it.63  Nor has the plurality’s rejection of the 
—————— 

62 McDonald, 561 U. S., at 765–766. 
63 Timbs,  586  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  3).    Contrary  to  the  dissent’s 
suggestion, this Court’s longstanding rejection of dual-track incorpora-
tion does not necessarily imply that the Fourteenth Amendment renders