{
  "id": "R45319",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45319",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 585576,
      "date": "2018-09-24",
      "retrieved": "2018-09-25T13:06:27.916409",
      "title": "The Supreme Court\u2019s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent",
      "summary": "By exercising its power to determine the constitutionality of federal and state government actions, the Supreme Court has developed a large body of judicial decisions, or \u201cprecedents,\u201d interpreting the Constitution. How the Court uses precedent to decide controversial issues has prompted debate over whether the Court should follow rules identified in prior decisions or overrule them. The Court\u2019s treatment of precedent implicates longstanding questions about how the Court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions.\nAlthough the Supreme Court has shown less reluctance to overrule its decisions on constitutional questions than its decisions on statutory questions, the Court has nevertheless stated that there must be some special justification\u2014or, at least \u201cstrong grounds\u201d\u2014that goes beyond disagreeing with a prior decision\u2019s reasoning to overrule constitutional precedent. Consequently, when deciding whether to overrule a precedent interpreting the Constitution, the Court has historically considered several \u201cprudential and pragmatic\u201d factors that seek to foster the rule of law while balancing the costs and benefits to society of reaffirming or overruling a prior holding:\nQuality of Reasoning. When determining whether to reaffirm or overrule a prior decision, the Supreme Court may consider the quality of the decision\u2019s reasoning. \nWorkability. Another factor that the Supreme Court may consider when determining whether to overrule a precedent is whether the precedent\u2019s rules or standards are too difficult for lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply and are thus \u201cunworkable.\u201d\nInconsistency with Related Decisions. A third factor the Supreme Court may consider is whether the precedent departs from the Court\u2019s other decisions on similar constitutional questions, either because the precedent\u2019s reasoning has been eroded by later decisions or because the precedent is a recent outlier when compared to other decisions.\nChanged Understanding of Relevant Facts. The Supreme Court has also indicated that changes in how the Justices and society understand a decision\u2019s underlying facts may undermine a precedent\u2019s authoritativeness, leading the Court to overrule it.\nReliance. Finally, the Supreme Court may consider whether it should retain a precedent, even if flawed, because overruling the decision would injure individuals, companies, or organizations; society as a whole; or legislative, executive, or judicial branch officers, who had relied on the decision. \nA survey of Supreme Court decisions applying these factors suggests that predicting when the Court will overrule a prior decision is difficult. This uncertainty arises, in part, because the Court has not provided an exhaustive list of the factors it uses to determine whether a decision should be overruled or how it weighs them. \nThe Appendix to this report lists Supreme Court decisions on constitutional law questions that the Court has overruled during its more than 225-year history.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45319",
          "sha1": "9cc024afb0fd0b88c94d7827cc74493ed64da6fa",
          "filename": "files/20180924_R45319_9cc024afb0fd0b88c94d7827cc74493ed64da6fa.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45319",
          "sha1": "3cafb6dc6b134c9a1c83eff9bfb780a3b904bd3a",
          "filename": "files/20180924_R45319_3cafb6dc6b134c9a1c83eff9bfb780a3b904bd3a.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions",
    "Domestic Social Policy"
  ]
}