The role of the Supreme Court in shaping U.S. law frequently hinges on its approach to precedent. As it currently stands, the Roberts Court is perceived by some as being particularly inclined to overturn existing legal precedents, which is soon to be tested yet again. The Court is set to hear cases involving longstanding precedents, such as Humphrey’s Executor v. United States and Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. These cases could reshape key aspects of federal authority and campaign finance law, respectively.
Despite assertions from critics, the Roberts Court has been statistically shown to overturn precedents less frequently than its predecessors. Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently noted in an interview with The New York Times that the Court averages roughly one precedent overturn per year, compared to around three cases per year by previous courts. Legal scholar Jonathan Adler echoed this sentiment, mentioning on the Volokh Conspiracy blog that the Court’s rate of overturning precedents has slowed, despite a conservative majority.
A potential explanation for this trend is the Court’s reduced caseload compared to prior eras. As reviewed by Adam Feldman, the Roberts Court averages fewer majority opinions than the Rehnquist and Burger Courts, which could inherently lead to fewer opportunities to overturn precedent.
Nonetheless, case decisions that have overturned precedent have been notably significant. The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and eliminated the federal constitutional right to an abortion. Similarly, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo saw the elimination of the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law.
The Court’s approach to stare decisis—the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent—often requires a balance between maintaining legal consistency and correcting past errors. Justices consider factors including errors in prior decisions, reasoning quality, rule workability, and reliance interests. In Janus v. AFSCME, the Court overturned a previous decision grounded in these criteria, prompting dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who argued for maintaining established precedent due to its substantial reliance among public sector unions.
As the Roberts Court prepares to tackle pivotal cases potentially altering established legal frameworks, it reveals the nuanced nature of legal interpretation and the enduring debate about when it is appropriate to uphold or overturn precedent. For further understanding of the issues at hand, the discussion is available in detail on the original SCOTUSblog article.