Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 78.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

31 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

Court  has  exhibited  before  overruling  Chevron  may  illus-
trate  one  of  the  reasons  why  the  current  Court  has  been 
slower to overrule precedents than some of its predecessors, 
see Part I–C, supra. 

None  of  this,  of  course,  discharges  any  Member  of  this 
Court from the task of deciding for himself or herself today 
whether Chevron deference itself warrants deference.  But 
when so many past and current judicial colleagues in this 
Court  and  across  the  country  tell  us  our  doctrine  is  mis-
guided, and when we ourselves managed without Chevron 
for centuries and manage to do so today, the humility at the
core of stare decisis compels us to pause and reflect carefully
on  the  wisdom  embodied  in  that  experience.    And,  in  the 
end,  to  my  mind  the  lessons  of  experience  counsel  wisely
against  continued  reliance  on  Chevron’s  stray  and  uncon-
sidered digression.  This Court’s opinions fill over 500 vol-
umes,  and  perhaps  “some  printed  judicial  word  may  be 
found  to  support  almost  any  plausible  proposition.”    R. 
Jackson,  Decisional  Law  and  Stare  Decisis,  30  A. B. A.  J. 
334 (1944).  It is not for us to pick and choose passages we 
happen to like and demand total obedience to them in per-
petuity.  That  would  turn  stare  decisis  from  a  doctrine  of 
humility into a tool for judicial opportunism.  Brown, 596 
U. S., at 141. 

III 
Proper respect for precedent helps “keep the scale of jus-
tice  even  and  steady,”  by  reinforcing  decisional  rules  con-
sistent with the law upon which all can rely.  1 Blackstone 
69.  But that respect  does not require, nor does it readily 
tolerate, a steadfast refusal to correct mistakes.  As early
as 1810, this Court had already overruled one of its cases.
See Hudson v. Guestier, 6 Cranch 281, 284 (overruling Rose 
v. Himely, 4 Cranch 241 (1808)).  In recent years, the Court 
may have overruled precedents less frequently than it did 
during the Warren and Burger Courts.  See Part I–C, supra.