Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 48

Cite as:  591 U. S. ____ (2020) 

3 

ROBERTS, C. J., concurring
ROBERTS, C. J., concurring in judgment 

again in litigation; as well to keep the scale of justice even 
and steady, and not liable to waver with every new judge’s
opinion.”  1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of 
England  69  (1765).    This  principle  is  grounded  in  a  basic 
humility that recognizes today’s legal issues are often not 
so different from the questions of yesterday and that we are
not the first ones to try to answer them.  Because the “pri-
vate stock of reason . . . in each man is small, . . . individu-
als would do better to avail themselves of the general bank 
and capital of nations and of ages.”  3 E. Burke, Reflections 
on the Revolution in France 110 (1790).

Adherence  to  precedent  is  necessary  to  “avoid  an  arbi-
trary  discretion  in  the  courts.”    The  Federalist  No.  78, 
p. 529 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).  The constraint of 
precedent  distinguishes  the  judicial  “method  and  philoso-
phy  from  those  of  the  political  and  legislative  process.” 
Jackson,  Decisional  Law  and  Stare  Decisis,  30  A. B. A. J. 
334 (1944).

The doctrine also brings pragmatic benefits.  Respect for
precedent “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and con-
sistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on 
judicial  decisions,  and  contributes  to  the  actual  and  per-
ceived integrity of the judicial process.”  Payne v. Tennessee, 
501  U. S.  808,  827  (1991).    It  is  the  “means  by  which  we 
ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but 
will  develop  in  a  principled  and  intelligible  fashion.” 
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986).  In that way,
“stare decisis is an old friend of the common lawyer.”  Jack-
son, supra, at 334. 

Stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.”  Ramos v. 
Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (slip op., at 20) (inter-
nal quotation marks omitted).  But for precedent to mean
anything,  the  doctrine  must  give  way  only  to  a  rationale 
that  goes  beyond  whether  the  case  was  decided  correctly.
The  Court  accordingly  considers  additional  factors  before
overruling  a precedent, such as its adminstrability, its fit