Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 49

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

15 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

purge  racial  prejudice  from  the  administration  of  justice” 
generally  and  from  the  jury  system  in  particular.    Pena- 
Rodriguez  v.  Colorado,  580  U. S.  ___,  ___–___  (2017)  (slip 
op., at 13–14) (collecting cases).

To state the point in simple terms: Why stick by an erro-
neous  precedent  that  is  egregiously  wrong  as  a  matter  of
constitutional  law,  that  allows  convictions  of  some  who 
would not be convicted under the proper constitutional rule, 
and  that  tolerates  and  reinforces  a  practice  that  is  thor-
oughly  racist  in  its  origins  and  has  continuing  racially 
discriminatory effects?
  Third, overruling Apodaca would not unduly upset reli-
ance  interests.  Only  Louisiana  and  Oregon  employ  non-
unanimous  juries  in  criminal  cases.    To  be  sure,  in  those 
two States, the Court’s decision today will invalidate some 
non-unanimous  convictions  where  the  issue  is  preserved
and the case is still on direct review.  But that consequence 
almost always ensues when a criminal-procedure precedent 
that  favors  the  government  is  overruled.    See  Ring,  536 
U. S. 584; Batson, 476 U. S. 79.  And here, at least, I would 
“count  that  a  small  price  to  pay  for  the  uprooting  of  this 
weed.”  Hubbard, 514 U. S., at 717 (Scalia, J., concurring in
part and concurring in judgment).

Except  for  the  effects  on  that  limited  class  of  direct-
review cases, it will be relatively easy going forward for Lou-
isiana and Oregon to transition to the unanimous jury rule
that the other 48 States and the federal courts use.  Indeed, 
in 2018, Louisiana amended its constitution to require jury 
unanimity in criminal trials for crimes committed on or af-
ter January 1, 2019, meaning that the transition is already 
well under way in Louisiana.

Importantly,  moreover,  this  Court  applies  a  separate
non-retroactivity doctrine to mitigate the disruptive effects
of overrulings in criminal cases.  Under the Court’s prece-
dents, new constitutional rules apply on direct review, but