Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1323_c07d.pdf
Page Number: 113.0

32 

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES L. L. C. v. RUSSO 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

right to counsel, both the bar ethics committee and the De-
partment  of  Labor,  which  had  intervened  in  state  court,
successfully  petitioned  for  review  in  this  Court.    We  then 
held  that  the  attorney  could  defend  the  decision  below 
based on the rights of his client. 

Triplett is inapposite here for at least two reasons.  First, 
the lawyer in that case did not initiate the litigation.  Sec-
ond, because the case arose in state court, his right to in-
voke his client’s rights in that forum was a question of state
law.  Had we prevented him from asserting those rights in 
this  Court,  he  would  have  been  unable  to  defend  himself 
against the petitioners’ arguments.  And on top of all this, 
Triplett, as we noted in Kowalski, “involved the representa-
tion of known claimants,” and that “existing attorney-client
relationship [was] quite different from the hypothetical . . . 
relationship” between the abortion providers and clients in 
That  Craig  and 
the present case.  543 U. S., at 131. 
Triplett  are  the  best  authorities  the  plurality  can  find  is 
telling proof of the weakness of its position. 

F 
  As THE CHIEF JUSTICE points out, stare decisis generally
counsels adherence to precedent, and in deciding whether 
to overrule a prior decision, we consider factors beyond the 
strength  of  the  precedent’s  reasoning.    Ante,  at  3–4.  But 
here, such factors weigh in favor of overruling. 

Reexamination of a precedent may be appropriate when 
it is an “outlier” and its reasoning cannot be reconciled with 
other established precedents, see Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. 
v. Hyatt, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 17); Janus v. 
State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2018) (slip op., at 43); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 
506, 521 (1995); Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American 
Express, Inc., 490 U. S. 477, 484 (1989), and that is true of 
the rule allowing abortion providers to assert their patients’ 
rights.  The parties have not brought to our attention any