Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/17-494_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 34

2 

SOUTH DAKOTA v. WAYFAIR, INC. 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

expiate a mistake it made over 50 years ago. 

I 

This  Court  “does  not  overturn  its  precedents  lightly.” 
Michigan  v.  Bay  Mills  Indian  Community,  572  U. S.  ___, 
___ (2014) (slip op., at 15).  Departing from the doctrine of 
stare decisis is an “exceptional action” demanding “special
justification.”  Arizona  v.  Rumsey,  467  U. S.  203,  212 
(1984).  The bar is even higher in fields in which Congress
“exercises  primary  authority”  and  can,  if  it  wishes,  over-
ride  this  Court’s  decisions  with  contrary  legislation.    Bay 
Mills,  572  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  16)  (tribal  sovereign
immunity);  see,  e.g.,  Kimble  v.  Marvel  Entertainment, 
LLC,  576  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2015)  (slip  op.,  at  8)  (statutory 
interpretation);  Halliburton  Co.  v.  Erica  P.  John  Fund, 
Inc.,  573  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2014)  (slip  op.,  at  12)  (judicially 
created doctrine implementing a judicially created cause of 
In  such  cases,  we  have  said  that  “the  burden 
action). 
borne  by  the  party  advocating  the  abandonment  of  an
established  precedent”  is  “greater”  than  usual.    Patterson 
v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 172 (1989).  That 
is so “even where the error is a matter of serious concern, 
provided  correction  can  be  had  by  legislation.”    Square  D 
Co. v. Niagara Frontier Tariff Bureau, Inc., 476 U. S. 409, 
424 (1986) (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 
U. S. 393, 406 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting)).

We have applied this heightened form of stare decisis in 
the  dormant  Commerce  Clause  context.  Under  our 
dormant  Commerce  Clause  precedents,  when  Congress
has not yet legislated on a matter of interstate commerce,
it  is  the  province  of  “the  courts  to  formulate  the  rules.” 
Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U. S. 
761, 770 (1945).  But because Congress “has plenary power 
to  regulate  commerce  among  the  States,”  Quill,  504 
U. S., at 305, it may at any time replace such judicial rules
with legislation of its own, see Prudential Ins. Co. v. Ben-