Justice Elena Kagan has emerged as a prominent advocate of stare decisis, the judicial principle emphasizing the importance of maintaining precedents unless there is a compelling reason to overturn them. Her stance has been particularly evident across several landmark cases, most notably her majority opinion in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, which she regards as a significant teaching moment in her judicial career.
The case recalls the 1964 decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., and Kagan’s majority opinion reaffirmed the doctrine of stare decisis by maintaining the existing precedent, demonstrating her commitment to judicial stability. Kagan’s opinion articulated that while the court holds the power to reverse its prior decisions, such actions should be sparingly executed.
In the broader analysis of her judicial philosophy, her dissents in key cases such as Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and Knick v. Township of Scott underscore her view that the court should respect precedents. In Janus, for example, Kagan stressed the rarity with which the Court should dismiss long-standing precedents.
Cases such as South Dakota v. Wayfair and Ramos v. Louisiana have seen Kagan sometimes parting ways with ideological allies to preserve prior decisions, further underscoring her belief in the systemic importance of judicial continuity.
In recent years, decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, prompted Kagan to express clear concerns over the implications of reversing established rulings. She argued that frequent overturning of precedents risks portraying the judiciary as a politicized body rather than an impartial arbiter of the law.
Kagan’s commitment to stare decisis will soon face another test. The Court will hear Kian v. Florida, where the petitioner seeks to overturn a 1970 decision regarding jury size. Given her established track record, Kagan’s vote might prioritize adherence to existing judicial decisions unless substantial reasoning persuades otherwise.
While her strong support for precedent could be perceived, as some critics argue, as a strategy to uphold liberal decisions before a conservative court, Kagan’s documented rationale for stare decisis aligns with her broader advocacy for judicial humility and the stability of the legal framework.