Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
Page Number: 47

Cite as:  597 U. S. ____ (2022) 

39 

Opinion of the Court 

our Nation’s legal traditions authorizes the Court to adopt
that “ ‘theory of life.’ ”  Post, at 8. 

III 
We  next  consider  whether  the  doctrine  of  stare  decisis 
counsels continued acceptance of Roe and Casey.  Stare de-
cisis plays an important role in our case law, and we have
explained that it serves many valuable ends.  It protects the 
interests  of  those  who  have  taken  action  in  reliance  on  a 
past decision.  See Casey, 505 U. S., at 856 (joint opinion); 
see also Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991).  It 
“reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, sav-
ing parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” 
Kimble,  576  U. S.,  at  455.  It  fosters  “evenhanded”  deci-
sionmaking by requiring that like cases be decided in a like 
manner.  Payne,  501  U. S.,  at  827.    It  “contributes  to  the 
actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”  Ibid. 
And it restrains judicial hubris and reminds us to respect
the  judgment  of  those  who  have  grappled  with  important 
questions in the past.  “Precedent is a way of accumulating
and passing down the learning of past generations, a font 
of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any 
single judge or panel of judges.”  N. Gorsuch, A Republic, If 
You Can Keep It 217 (2019).

We  have  long  recognized,  however,  that  stare  decisis  is 
“not  an  inexorable  command,”  Pearson  v.  Callahan,  555 
U. S.  223,  233  (2009)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted), 
and  it  “is  at  its  weakest  when  we  interpret  the  Constitu-
tion,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997).  It has 
been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue
“ ‘be  settled  than  that  it  be  settled  right.’ ”    Kimble,  576 
U. S.,  at  455  (quoting  Burnet  v.  Coronado  Oil  &  Gas  Co., 
285  U. S.  393,  406  (1932)  (Brandeis,  J.,  dissenting)).    But 
when  it  comes  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution—
the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant “to en-