Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf
Page Number: 81

26  JANUS v. STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

at  321  (quoting  Rodriguez  de  Quijas  v.  Shearson/ 
American  Express,  Inc.,  490  U. S.  477,  484  (1989);
some alterations omitted).  That instruction, Justice Scalia 
explained,  was  “incompatible”  with  an  expectation  that
“private parties anticipate our overrulings.”  406 U. S., at 
320.  He  concluded:  “[R]eliance  upon  a  square,  unaban-
doned  holding  of  the  Supreme  Court  is  always  justifiable
reliance.”  Ibid.  Abood’s holding was square.  It was una-
bandoned before today.  It was, in other words, the law— 
however  much  some  were  working  overtime  to  make  it 
not.  Parties,  both  unions  and  governments,  were  thus 
justified  in  relying  on  it.    And  they  did  rely,  to  an  extent 
rare among our decisions.  To dismiss the overthrowing of 
their settled expectations as entailing no more than some 
“adjustments”  and  “unpleasant  transition  costs,”  ante,  at 
47, is to trivialize stare decisis. 

IV 
There is no sugarcoating today’s  opinion.  The majority
overthrows  a  decision  entrenched  in  this  Nation’s  law— 
and in its economic life—for over 40 years.  As a result, it 
prevents  the  American  people,  acting  through  their  state
and  local  officials,  from  making  important  choices  about
workplace governance.  And it does so by weaponizing the 
First  Amendment,  in  a  way  that  unleashes  judges,  now 
and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory
policy.
  Departures from stare decisis are supposed to be “excep-
tional  action[s]”  demanding  “special  justification,”  Rum-
sey, 467 U. S., at 212—but the majority offers nothing like
that here.  In contrast to the vigor of its attack on Abood, 
the  majority’s  discussion  of  stare  decisis  barely  limps  to
the finish line.  And no wonder: The standard factors this 
Court  considers  when  deciding  to  overrule  a  decision  all 
cut one way.  Abood’s legal underpinnings have not eroded
over time: Abood is now, as it was when issued, consistent