Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 538

Cite as: 558 U. S. 310 (2010) 

377 

Roberts, C. J., concurring 

declares that the Court “reafﬁrmed” Austin’s holding in sub­
sequent  cases—namely,  Federal  Election  Comm’n  v.  Beau­
mont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003); McConnell; and WRTL.  Post, at 
439–441.  Not  so.  Not  a  single  party  in  any  of  those  cases 
asked  us  to  overrule  Austin,  and  as  the  dissent  points  out, 
post,  at 396–398,  the  Court generally  does  not consider  con­
stitutional  arguments  that  have  not  properly  been  raised. 
Austin’s  validity  was  therefore  not  directly  at  issue  in  the 
cases  the  dissent  cites.  The  Court’s  unwillingness  to  over­
turn  Austin  in  those  cases  cannot  be  understood  as  a  reaf­
ﬁrmation of that decision. 

A 

Fidelity to precedent—the policy of stare decisis—is vital 
to  the  proper  exercise  of  the  judicial  function.  “Stare  deci­
sis  is  the  preferred  course  because  it  promotes  the  even­
handed,  predictable,  and  consistent  development  of  legal 
principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contrib­
utes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial proc­
ess.”  Payne  v.  Tennessee,  501  U. S.  808,  827  (1991).  For 
these reasons, we have long recognized that departures from 
precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a “special justi­
ﬁcation.”  Arizona v.  Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203, 212 (1984). 

At  the  same  time,  stare  decisis  is  neither  an  “inexorable 
command,”  Lawrence  v.  Texas,  539  U. S.  558,  577  (2003), 
nor  “a  mechanical  formula  of  adherence  to  the  latest  deci­
sion,”  Helvering  v.  Hallock,  309  U. S.  106,  119  (1940), 
especially in constitutional cases, see  United States v.  Scott, 
437  U. S.  82,  101  (1978).  If  it  were,  segregation  would  be 
legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the 
Government  could  wiretap  ordinary criminal  suspects  with­
out  ﬁrst  obtaining  warrants.  See  Plessy  v.  Ferguson,  163 
U. S. 537 (1896), overruled by Brown v.  Board of Education, 
347  U. S.  483  (1954);  Adkins  v.  Children’s  Hospital  of  D.  C., 
261  U. S.  525  (1923),  overruled  by  West  Coast  Hotel  Co.  v. 
Parrish,  300  U. S.  379  (1937);  Olmstead  v.  United  States, 
277  U. S.  438  (1928),  overruled  by  Katz  v.  United  States,