Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 35

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, 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 KAVANAUGH, concurring in part.

  In  Apodaca  v.  Oregon,  this  Court  held  that  state  juries
need  not  be  unanimous  in  order  to  convict  a  criminal  de-
fendant.  406 U. S. 404 (1972).  Two States, Louisiana and 
Oregon,  have  continued  to  use  non-unanimous  juries  in
criminal  cases.  Today,  the  Court  overrules  Apodaca  and 
holds  that  state  juries  must  be  unanimous  in  order  to 
convict a criminal defendant. 

I agree with the Court that the time has come to overrule 
Apodaca.  I therefore join the introduction and Parts I, II–A,
III,  and  IV–B–1  of  the  Court’s  persuasive  and  important 
opinion.  I write separately to explain my view of how stare 
decisis applies to this case. 

I 

The legal doctrine of stare decisis derives from the Latin 
maxim “stare decisis et non quieta movere,” which means to 
stand by the thing decided and not disturb the calm.  The 
doctrine  reflects  respect  for  the  accumulated  wisdom  of 
judges who have previously tried to solve the same problem.
In 1765, Blackstone—“the preeminent authority on English 
law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 
706,  715  (1999)—wrote  that  “it  is  an  established  rule  to 
abide  by  former  precedents,”  to  “keep  the  scale  of  justice
even  and  steady,  and  not  liable  to  waver  with  every  new 
judge’s  opinion.”  1  W.  Blackstone,  Commentaries  on  the