Trump v. Slaughter · ¶65

If anything more is left of Humphrey’s, we overrule it. Humphrey’s has for decades been a result in search of a rationale. As we have often said, stare decisis is not an “inexorable command,” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 828 (1991), and is at its weakest in constitutional cases, where only we may readily fix our own mistakes, Agostini v. Fel ton, 521 U. S. 203, 235 (1997). Our precedents about precedent teach that a number of factors are relevant. Here, every factor—the “quality” of the decision’s reasoning, its “consistency” with our other cases, the “workability” of its rule, and the interests of those who have “reli[ed]” on it, Knick v. Township of Scott, 588 U. S. 180, 203 (2019)— counsels in favor of letting Humphrey’s go.

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