Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-877_dc8f.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  589 U. S. ____ (2020) 

1 

THOMAS, J., concurring
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–877 
_________________ 

FREDERICK L. ALLEN, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. ROY 
A. COOPER, III, GOVERNOR OF NORTH 
CAROLINA, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[March 23, 2020]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in

the judgment. 

I  agree  with  the  Court’s  conclusion  that  the  Copyright
Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, 17 U. S. C. §501 et seq., 
does not validly abrogate States’ sovereign immunity.  But 
I cannot join the Court’s opinion in its entirety.  I write sep-
arately to note two disagreements and one question that re-
mains open for resolution in a future case. 

First, although I agree that Florida Prepaid Postsecond-
ary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627 
(1999), is binding precedent, I cannot join the Court’s dis-
cussion of stare decisis.  The Court claims we need “ ‘special
justification[s]’ ” to overrule precedent because error alone 
“cannot  overcome  stare  decisis.”  Ante,  at  9–10.    That  ap-
proach “does not comport with our judicial duty under Arti-
cle III.”  Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) 
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 2).  If our decision in 
Florida  Prepaid  were  demonstrably  erroneous,  the  Court
would  be  obligated  to  “correct  the  error,  regardless  of
whether  other  factors  support  overruling  the  precedent.” 
587 U. S., at ___–___ (same) (slip op., at 8–9). 

Here,  adherence  to  our  precedent  is  warranted  because 
petitioners have not demonstrated that our decision in Flor-