Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

4 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part 

States  could  still  deprive  a  defendant  of  the  right  to  con-
front  her  accuser  so  long  as  the  incriminating  statement
was “reliable.”  Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U. S. 56 (1980), abro-
gated by Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36 (2004).  The 
Constitution  demands  more  than  the  continued  use  of 
flawed  criminal  procedures—all  because  the  Court  fears 
the consequences of changing course. 

III 
Finally, the majority vividly describes the legacy of rac-
ism that generated Louisiana’s and Oregon’s laws.  Ante, at 
1–2, 13–14, and n. 44.  Although Ramos does not bring an
equal  protection  challenge,  the  history  is  worthy  of  this 
Court’s attention.  That is not simply because that legacy
existed  in  the  first  place—unfortunately,  many  laws  and 
policies in this country have had some history of racial ani-
mus—but also because the States’ legislatures never truly
grappled with the laws’ sordid history in reenacting them. 
See generally United States v. Fordice, 505 U. S. 717, 729 
(1992) (policies that are “traceable” to a State’s de jure ra-
cial segregation and that still “have discriminatory effects” 
offend the Equal Protection Clause).

Where a law otherwise is untethered to racial bias—and 
perhaps also where a legislature actually confronts a law’s
tawdry past in reenacting it—the new law may well be free
of discriminatory taint.  That cannot be said of the laws at 
issue here.  While the dissent points to the “legitimate” rea-
sons for Louisiana’s reenactment, post, at 3–4, Louisiana’s 
perhaps only effort to contend with the law’s discriminatory
purpose  and  effects  came  recently,  when  the  law  was  re-
pealed altogether.

Today,  Louisiana’s  and  Oregon’s  laws  are  fully—and
rightly—relegated to the dustbin of history.  And so, too, is 
Apodaca.  While  overruling  precedent  must  be  rare,  this 
Court should not shy away from correcting its errors where