Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 60.0

8 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment 

clause applies, Timbs, supra, at ___ (GORSUCH, J., concur-
ring) (slip op., at 1).

I  have  already  rejected  our  due  process  incorporation
cases as demonstrably erroneous, and I fundamentally dis-
agree with applying that theory of incorporation simply be-
cause it reaches the same result in the case before us.  Close 
enough is for horseshoes and hand grenades, not constitu-
tional interpretation.  The textual difference between pro-
tecting “citizens” (in the Privileges or Immunities Clause)
and “person[s]” (in the Due Process Clause) will surely be 
relevant  in  another  case.  And  our  judicial  duty—not  to
mention the candor we owe to our fellow citizens—requires 
us to put an end to this Court’s due process prestidigitation, 
which no one is willing to defend on the merits. 

I would simply hold that, because all of the opinions in 
Apodaca addressed the Due Process Clause, its Fourteenth 
Amendment  ruling  does  not  bind  us  because  the  proper 
question here is the scope of the Privileges or Immunities 
Clause.  I cannot understand why the Court, having decided 
to abandon Apodaca, refuses to correctly root its holding in 
the Privileges or Immunities Clause.1 

III 
There  is  no  need  to  prove  the  original  meaning  of  the 

—————— 

1 I also note that, under my approach to stare decisis, there is no need 
to decide which reliance interests are important enough to save an incor-
rect precedent.  I doubt that this question is susceptible of principled res-
olution in this case, compare ante, at 22–26 (principal opinion), with ante, 
at 3 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring); ante, at 15–17 (KAVANAUGH, J., concur-
ring); and post, at 19–26 (ALITO, J., dissenting), or in any other case for 
that matter, see, e.g., Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 
446, 457–458 (2015); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 577 (2003); Dick-
erson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 443 (2000); Planned Parenthood of 
Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 855–856 (1992).