Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 41

Cite as:  590 U. S. ____ (2020) 

7 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

how  does  the  Court  know  when  to  overrule  and  when  to 
stand pat?

As the Court has exercised the “judicial Power” over time,
the Court has identified various stare decisis factors.  In ar-
ticulating and applying those factors, the Court has, to bor-
row James Madison’s words, sought to liquidate and ascer-
tain  the  meaning  of  the  Article  III  “judicial  Power”  with 
respect to precedent.  The Federalist No. 37, at 236. 

The stare decisis factors identified by the Court in its past 

cases include: 

  the quality of the precedent’s reasoning; 
  the precedent’s consistency and coherence with pre-

vious or subsequent decisions; 

  changed law since the prior decision; 
  changed facts since the prior decision; 
  the workability of the precedent; 
  the reliance interests of those who have relied on the 

precedent; and 

  the age of the precedent. 

But the Court has articulated and applied those various in-
dividual factors without establishing any consistent meth-
odology  or  roadmap  for  how  to  analyze  all  of  the  factors
taken together.  And in my view, that muddle poses a prob-
lem for the rule of law and for this Court, as the Court at-
tempts to apply stare decisis principles in a neutral and con-
sistent manner. 

As I read the Court’s cases on precedent, those varied and 
somewhat elastic stare decisis factors fold into three broad 
considerations that, in my view, can help guide the inquiry 
and  help  determine  what  constitutes  a  “special  justifica-
tion” or “strong grounds” to overrule a prior constitutional 
decision. 

First, is the prior decision not just wrong, but grievously 
or egregiously wrong?  A garden-variety error or disagree-
ment does not suffice to overrule.  In the view of the Court