Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Page Number: 50.0

Cite as:  603 U. S. ____ (2024) 

3 

GORSUCH, J., concurring 

at  large,  “for  that  only  the  King  and  Parliament  can  do.” 
Ibid. 

Other  consequences  followed  for  the  role  precedent
played  in  future  judicial  proceedings.  Because  past  deci-
sions represented something “less than a Law,” they did not 
bind  future  judges.  Ibid.    At  the  same  time,  as  Matthew 
Hale  put  it,  a  future  judge  could  give  a  past  decision 
“Weight”  as  “Evidence”  of  the  law.  Ibid.  Expressing  the
same idea, William Blackstone conceived of judicial prece-
dents as “evidence” of “the common law.”  1 Blackstone 69, 
71.  And much like other forms of evidence, precedents at 
common law were thought to vary in the weight due them.
Some past decisions might supply future courts with con-
siderable guidance.  But others might be entitled to lesser
weight, not least because judges are no less prone to error 
than anyone else and they may sometimes “mistake” what
the law demands.  Id., at 71 (emphasis deleted).  In cases 
like  that,  both  men  thought,  a  future  judge  should  not 
rotely repeat a past mistake but instead “vindicate” the law 
“from misrepresentation.”  Id., at 70. 

When  examining  past  decisions  as  evidence  of  the  law, 
common law judges did not, broadly speaking, afford over-
whelming  weight  to  any  “single  precedent.”    J. Baker,  An 
Introduction  to  English  Legal  History  209–210  (5th  ed.
2019).  Instead, a prior decision’s persuasive force depended 
in  large  measure  on  its  “Consonancy  and  Congruity  with 
Resolutions and Decisions of former Times.”  Hale 68.  An 
individual decision might reflect the views of one court at
one moment in time, but a consistent line of decisions rep-
resenting the wisdom of many minds across many genera-
tions  was  generally  considered  stronger  evidence  of  the
law’s meaning.  Ibid. 

With  this  conception  of  precedent  in  mind,  Lord  Mans-
field  cautioned  against  elevating  “particular  cases”  above
the  “general  principles”  that  “run  through  the  cases,  and 
govern the decision of them.”  Rust v. Cooper, 2 Cowp. 629,