Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

8 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

that is considering whether to overrule, the precedent must
be  egregiously  wrong  as  a  matter  of  law  in  order  for  the
Court to overrule it.  In conducting that inquiry, the Court 
may examine the quality of the precedent’s reasoning, con-
sistency and coherence with other decisions, changed law,
changed  facts,  and  workability,  among  other  factors.  A 
case  may  be  egregiously  wrong  when  decided,  see,  e.g., 
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214 (1944); Plessy v. 
Ferguson,  163  U. S.  537  (1896),  or  may  be  unmasked  as
egregiously  wrong  based  on  later  legal  or  factual  under-
standings  or  developments,  see,  e.g.,  Nevada  v.  Hall,  440 
U. S. 410 (1979), or both, ibid. 

Second, has the prior decision caused significant negative
jurisprudential or real-world consequences?  In conducting
that inquiry, the Court may consider jurisprudential conse-
quences  (some  of  which  are  also  relevant  to  the  first  in-
quiry), such as workability, as well as consistency and co-
herence  with  other  decisions,  among  other 
factors. 
Importantly, the Court may also scrutinize the precedent’s
real-world effects on the citizenry, not just its effects on the
law and the legal system.  See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Ed-
ucation, 347 U. S., at 494–495; Barnette, 319 U. S., at 630– 
642; see also Payne, 501 U. S., at 825–827. 

Third, would overruling the prior decision unduly upset
reliance interests?  This consideration focuses on the legiti-
mate expectations of those who have reasonably relied on
the precedent.  In conducting that inquiry, the Court may
examine a variety of reliance interests and the age of the 
precedent, among other factors.

In short, the first consideration requires inquiry into how 
wrong the precedent is as a matter of law.  The second and 
third considerations together demand, in Justice Jackson’s
words, a “sober appraisal of the disadvantages of the inno-
vation as well as those of the questioned case, a weighing of 
practical  effects  of  one  against  the  other.”  Jackson,  30 
A. B. A. J., at 334.