Trump v. Slaughter · ¶225

The reason, of course, is stare decisis, which the majority all but disregards. Faithful “[a]dherence to precedent is a ‘foundation stone of the rule of law.’” Kisor v. Wilkie, 588 U. S. 558, 586 (2019). Stare decisis “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process” by promoting “the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991), and ensuring that decisions are “founded in the law rather than in the proclivities of individuals,” Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 265 (1986). At bottom, this doctrine recognizes that, even if today’s Justices might decide an issue differently than their predecessors did, greater institutional values usually counsel “sticking to some wrong decisions.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455 (2015).

slip opinion, revised 7/07/26
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.