Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf
Page Number: 52

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

17 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 

C 
  Precedent.  With  a  Constitution  and  a  Supreme  Court
that are both more than two centuries old, this Court and 
other  courts  are  rarely  interpreting  a  constitutional 
provision for the first time.  Rather, a substantial body of
for  many 
Supreme  Court  precedent  already  exists 
provisions of the Constitution.

Precedent  is  fundamental  to  day-to-day  constitutional
decisionmaking  in  this  Court  and  every  American  court.
The “judicial Power” established in Article III incorporates 
the principle of stare decisis, both vertical and horizontal. 
As Hamilton stated, to “avoid an arbitrary discretion in the 
courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down
by strict rules and precedents” that will “unavoidably swell 
to a very considerable bulk” and “serve to define and point 
out  their  duty  in  every  particular  case  that  comes  before 
them.”  The Federalist No. 78, at 471 (A. Hamilton).  

Courts  must  respect  precedent,  while  at  the  same  time 
recognizing that precedent on occasion may appropriately 
be overturned.  See, e.g., Brown, 347 U. S. 483; West Coast 
Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379 (1937); see also Ramos 
v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. 83, 115–132 (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., 
concurring  in  part).    In  light  of  the  significant  amount  of
Supreme Court precedent that has built up over time, this
Court and other courts often decide constitutional cases by
reference to those extensive bodies of precedent. 

Even then, however, text and history still matter a great 
deal.  When determining how broadly or narrowly to read a
precedent;  when  determining  whether  to  extend,  limit,  or
narrow a precedent; or in relatively infrequent cases, when 
determining whether to overrule a precedent, a court often 
will  consider  how  the  precedent  squares  with  the 
Constitution’s text and history.  Therefore, the text, as well 
as  pre-ratification  and  post-ratification  history,  may
appropriately function as a gravitational pull on the Court’s 
interpretation  of  precedent.    See  Free  Enterprise  Fund