Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 85.0

24 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

strenuous  dissents  voicing  fears  about  the  future  of  stare 
decisis.  See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. 
___, ___ (2019) (BREYER, J., dissenting); Knick v. Township 
of  Scott,  588  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2019) (KAGAN, J.,  dissenting).  
Yet  in  neither  of  those  cases  was  there  reliance  like  that 
present here.

In Franchise Tax Board, the dissent claimed only the air-
iest  sort  of  reliance,  the  public’s  expectation  that  past
decisions would remain on the books.  587 U. S., at ___–___ 
(opinion of BREYER, J.) (slip op., at 12–13).  And in Knick, 
the dissent disclaimed any reliance at all.  588 U. S., at ___ 
(opinion of KAGAN, J.) (slip op., at 17).  The same was true 
the year before in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U. S. 
___  (2018),  where  the  dissent  did  not  contend  that  any 
legitimate reliance interests weighed in favor of preserving 
the  decision  that  the  Court  overruled.    Id.,  at  ___–___ 
(opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.) (slip op., at 1–2).  And our unan-
imous decision in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233 
(2009), found that no reliance interests were involved. 

In  other  cases  overruling  prior  decisions,  the  dissents 
claimed that reliance interests were at stake, but whatever 
one may think about the weight of those interests, no one
can argue that they are comparable to those in this case. 

In Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U. S. 778, 793–797 (2009), 
the  Court  abrogated  a  prophylactic  rule  that  had  been 
adopted  in  Michigan  v.  Jackson,  475  U. S.  625  (1986), 
to  protect  a  defendant’s  right  to  counsel  during  post-
arraignment interrogation.  The dissent did not claim that 
any defendants had relied on this rule, arguing instead that
the public at large had an interest “in knowing that counsel, 
once secured, may be reasonably relied upon as a medium
between the accused and the power of the State.”  Montejo, 
supra, at 809 (opinion of Stevens, J.).  This abstract inter-
est,  if  it  can  be  called  reliance  in  any  proper  sense  of  the
term, is a far cry from what is at stake here.

In Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S.