Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 30

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

1 

SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 18–5924 
_________________ 

EVANGELISTO RAMOS, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL 
OF LOUISIANA, FOURTH CIRCUIT 

[April 20, 2020] 

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring as to all but Part IV–A. 
I agree with most of the Court’s rationale, and so I join 
all but Part IV–A of its opinion.  I write separately, how-
ever,  to  underscore  three  points.  First,  overruling  prece-
dent here is not only warranted, but compelled.  Second, the 
interests  at  stake  point  far  more  clearly  to  that  outcome
than those in other recent cases.  And finally, the racially
biased origins of the Louisiana and Oregon laws uniquely 
matter here. 

I 

Both the majority and the dissent rightly emphasize that 
stare decisis “has been a fundamental part of our jurispru-
dence since the founding.”  Post, at 12 (opinion of ALITO, J.); 
see ante, at 20.  Indeed, “[w]e generally adhere to our prior 
decisions, even if we question their soundness, because do-
ing  so  ‘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.’ ”  Alleyne v. United 
States,  570  U. S.  99,  118  (2013)  (SOTOMAYOR,  J.,  concur-
ring)  (quoting  Payne  v.  Tennessee,  501  U. S.  808,  827 
(1991)).

But  put  simply,  this  is  not  a  case  where  we  cast  aside 
precedent “simply because a majority of this Court now dis-