Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

2 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

Laws of England 69 (1765).  The Framers of our Constitu-
tion understood that the doctrine of stare decisis is part of
the “judicial Power” and rooted in Article III of the Consti-
tution.  Writing in Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton em-
phasized the importance of stare decisis: To “avoid an arbi-
trary  discretion  in  the  courts,  it  is  indispensable”  that
federal  judges  “should  be  bound  down  by  strict  rules  and 
precedents, which serve to define and point out their duty
in every particular case that comes before them.”  The Fed-
eralist No. 78, p. 529 (J. Cooke ed. 1961).  In the words of 
THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE,  stare  decisis’  “greatest  purpose  is  to 
serve  a  constitutional  ideal—the  rule  of  law.”  Citizens 
United  v.  Federal  Election  Comm’n,  558  U. S.  310,  378 
(2010) (concurring opinion).

This  Court  has  repeatedly  explained  that  stare  decisis 
“promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent de-
velopment of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial de-
cisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integ-
rity of the judicial process.”  Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 
808, 827 (1991).  The doctrine “permits society to presume
that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than
in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to 
the  integrity  of  our  constitutional  system  of  government,
both  in  appearance  and  in  fact.”  Vasquez  v.  Hillery,  474 
U. S. 254, 265–266 (1986).

The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that 
the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents.  All 
Justices now on this Court agree that it is sometimes ap-
propriate for the Court to overrule erroneous decisions.  In-
deed, in just the last few Terms, every current Member of
this  Court  has  voted  to  overrule  multiple  constitutional 
precedents.  See, e.g., Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 
___ (2019); Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. ___ 
(2019); Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 
585 U. S. ___ (2018); Hurst v. Florida, 577 U. S. ___ (2016); 
Obergefell  v.  Hodges,  576  U. S.  644  (2015);  Johnson  v.