Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-5924_n6io.pdf
Page Number: 52

18 

RAMOS v. LOUISIANA 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

* 

* 
  In sum, Apodaca is egregiously wrong, it has significant 
negative consequences, and overruling it would not unduly 
upset reliance interests.  I therefore agree with the Court’s 
decision to overrule Apodaca.10 

* 

—————— 
view of the States’ reliance interests.  My respectful disagreement with 
JUSTICE ALITO primarily boils down to our different assessments of those
reliance interests—in particular, our different evaluations of how readily
Louisiana and Oregon can adjust to an overruling of Apodaca. 

10 As noted above, I join the introduction and Parts I, II–A, III, and IV–
B–1  of  JUSTICE  GORSUCH’s  opinion  for  the  Court.  The  remainder  of 
JUSTICE GORSUCH’s opinion does not command a majority.  That point is
important  with  respect  to  Part  IV–A,  which  only  three  Justices  have 
joined.  It appears that six Justices of the Court treat the result in Apo-
daca as a precedent and therefore do not subscribe to the analysis in Part
IV–A of JUSTICE GORSUCH’s opinion.