Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe · ¶103
Even if Sosa was wrongly decided, that still would not justify the result the majority reaches today. The rule of stare decisis, or “[a]dherence to precedent,” this Court has explained, is “‘a “foundation stone of the rule of law,”’” Ki sor v. Wilkie, 588 U. S. 558, 586 (2019). This “important doctrine . . . ensure[s] that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion.” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). It also “permits society to presume that bedrock principles are founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals, and thereby contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact.” Id., at 265–266. Overturning a prior decision therefore requires “special justification”; “it is not alone sufficient that we would decide a case differently now than we did…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.