Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 51

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

43 

Opinion of the Court 

American constitutional law as we know it would be unrec-
ognizable, and this would be a different country. 

No Justice of this Court has ever argued that the Court 
should never overrule a constitutional decision, but overrul-
ing  a  precedent  is  a  serious  matter.  It  is  not  a  step  that 
should be taken lightly.  Our cases have attempted to pro-
vide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be
overruled, and they have identified factors that should be
considered  in  making  such  a  decision.  Janus  v.  State, 
County,  and  Municipal  Employees,  585  U. S.  ___,  ___–___ 
(2018)  (slip  op.,  at  34–35);  Ramos  v.  Louisiana,  590  U. S. 
___,  ___–___  (2020)  (KAVANAUGH,  J.,  concurring  in  part)
(slip op., at 7–9).

In this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of over-
ruling Roe and Casey: the nature of their  error, the quality
of  their  reasoning,  the  “workability”  of  the  rules  they  im-
posed on the country, their disruptive effect on other areas 
of the law, and the absence of concrete reliance. 

A 
The nature of the Court’s error.  An erroneous interpreta-
tion of the Constitution is always important, but some are
more damaging than others.

The  infamous  decision  in  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  was  one 

—————— 
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 (1961) (the exclusionary rule regarding the 
inadmissibility  of  evidence obtained  in  violation  of  the Fourth  Amend-
ment  applies  to  the  States),  overruling  Wolf  v.  Colorado,  338  U. S.  25 
(1949);  Smith  v.  Allwright,  321  U. S.  649  (1944)  (racial  restrictions  on 
the  right  to  vote  in  primary  elections  violates  the  Equal  Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment), overruling Grovey v. Townsend, 
295 U. S. 45 (1935); United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 (1941) (con-
gressional  power  to  regulate  employment  conditions  under  the  Com-
merce Clause), overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 (1918); 
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938) (Congress does not have the 
power to declare substantive rules of common law; a federal court sitting
in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive state law), overrul-
ing Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1 (1842).