Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 62

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

1 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

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 ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, and 
with whom JUSTICE KAGAN joins as to all but Part III–D, 
dissenting. 

The doctrine of stare decisis gets rough treatment in to-
day’s decision.  Lowering the bar for overruling our prece-
dents, a badly fractured majority casts aside an important 
and long-established decision with little regard for the enor-
mous reliance the decision has engendered.  If the major-
ity’s approach is not just a way to dispose of this one case, 
the decision marks an important turn. 

Nearly a half century ago in Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U. S. 
404 (1972), the Court held that the Sixth Amendment per-
mits  non-unanimous  verdicts  in  state  criminal  trials,  and 
in all the years since then, no Justice has even hinted that 
Apodaca should be reconsidered.  Understandably thinking 
that Apodaca was good law, the state courts in Louisiana 
and Oregon have tried thousands of cases under rules that
permit such verdicts.  But today, the Court does away with 
Apodaca  and,  in  so  doing,  imposes  a  potentially  crushing 
burden on the courts and criminal justice systems of those 
States.  The  Court,  however,  brushes  aside  these  conse-
quences  and  even  suggests  that  the  States  should  have 
known better than to count on our decision. 

To  add  insult  to  injury,  the  Court  tars  Louisiana  and
Oregon  with  the  charge  of  racism  for  permitting  non-
unanimous  verdicts—even  though  this  Court  found  such