Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 73.0

12 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

that the right has different dimensions in state and federal 
cases.  And no one on this Court or on a lower court had any
trouble locating the narrow common ground between Jus-
tice Powell and the plurality in Apodaca: The States need 
not require unanimity to comply with the Constitution. 

For all these reasons, Apodaca clearly was a precedent,
and if the Court wishes to be done with it, it must explain
why overruling Apodaca is consistent with the doctrine of 
stare decisis. 

III 
A 
Stare  decisis  has  been  a  fundamental  part  of  our  juris-
prudence  since  the  founding,  and  it  is  an  important  doc-
trine.  But, as we have said many times, it is not an “inexo-
rable  command.”  Payne,  501  U. S.,  at  828;  Gamble,  587 
U. S.,  at  ___–___  (slip  op.,  at  11–12).    There  are  circum-
stances  when  past  decisions  must  be  overturned,  but  we
begin with the presumption that we will follow precedent, 
and therefore when the Court decides to overrule, it has an 
obligation to provide an explanation for its decision.

This is imperative because the Court should have a body 
of  neutral  principles  on  the  question  of  overruling  prece-
dent.  The  doctrine  should  not  be  transformed  into  a  tool 
that favors particular outcomes.16 

B 
What  is  the  majority’s  justification  for  overruling  Apo-
daca?  With no apparent appreciation of the irony, today’s 
majority, which is divided into four separate camps,17 criti-
cizes the Apodaca majority as “badly fractured.”  Ante, at 8. 
—————— 

16 It is also important that the Court as a whole adhere to its “prece-
dent[s]  about  precedent.”  Alleyne  v.  United  States,  570  U. S.  99,  134 
(2013)  (ALITO,  J.,  dissenting). 
If  individual  Justices  apply  different 
standards for overruling past decisions, the overall effects of the doctrine 
will not be neutral. 

17 Three Justices join the principal opinion in its entirety.  Two Justices