Yes, The Supreme Court Has Reversed A Precedent Based Entirely On Its Wrongness

In oral arguments DobbsThe Solicitor General was forced to take a hard line. A case should not be overruled by the Supreme Court simply because it is wrong. Justice Alito emphasized this point with devastating questions.

JUSTICE ALITO – Is your argument that a case cannot be overruled because it is egregiously incorrect?

GENERAL PRELOGAR – I believe that the state must present at least one materially altered circumstance or a materially new argument. Mississippi has not done this in this instance.

Justice Alito made the obvious reply:

JUSTICE ALTO Assume that Ferguson versus Plessy was being reargued in 1897. So, nothing has changed. Is it possible to simply say it was an outrageously wrong decision that was rendered on the day? And it is now a matter of right and wrong.

Answer: It would suffice, of course.. The SG couldn’t accept that view. This would be a violation of the federal government’s belief that wrongness does not suffice to set aside a precedent.

GENERAL PRLOGAR: This was clearly a grossly wrong decision on the day it was made. PlessyHowever, the Court stated in its analysis PlessyYou can find more information here Brown CaseyIt was clear that the factual assumption that segregation did not create an inferiority badge, which underpinned the decision, was completely wrong.

The grounds for ruling are, in other words. Plessy only became clear in the five decades after the case. Huh? Plessy It was concluded that segregation did not create inferior badges. Jim Crow, however, proved that segregation actually created badges of inequality. It was five decades before it became evident that two were not equal. This perspective was also expressed by Justice Breyer, which surprised me.

JUSTICE BREYER … PlessyWas wrong in the end, but just take a second to remember. PlessyThey believed that being different but equal meant you were inferior. They said it wasn’t. You just need to open your eyes, friend, and see if it is or not in 1954.

This is not a completely rational position. Brown It is based on twentieth-century social science research.

Whatever the level of psychology knowledge, Plessy v. FergusonThis finding is supported in large part by modern authority.  Every language can be in Plessy v. Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

In this regard, Warren Court could not reach its decision before the Doll Test. Remember, Brown Reliance on the original meaning of the word was disqualified. The Court could only make its decision based on modern understandings of education. Let’s be very clear: Brown The decision was not final Plessy. The Court simply stated that the doctrine “separate, but equal” is not applicable in the area of public education.

Prelogar and Breyer didn’t make that argument. Instead, Alito was questioned by the Solicitor General.

JUSTICE ALTO: It is. . . Answer: We needed every experience between 1896 and 1954 in order to do that PlessyWere you wrongly convicted? Could you please answer this question? Is it possible to answer my question: Had the Court heard it in 1897, would it have been overruled?

GENERAL PRLOGAR: While I believe it should be overruled, I feel that it did not follow the facts. The Court, however, realized this and clarified it in Brown.

This sentence has been repeated several times. It’s still not clear to me. Justice Alito did too.

JUSTICE ALIMO: I don’t. But, your answer is –I don’t. A decision can be overruled if it is erroneously flawed, even though nothing changed in the period between when it was made and when it is being considered by the Court. Is it true? Could you please give me an answer?

Justice Alito set another trap. SG Prelogar ought to have hedged. But she didn’t. But she didn’t.

GENERAL PRLOGAR: No, this Court does not have NeverIn that case, it has been overruled based only on the conclusion of incorrect decision. It has AlwaysThe stare decisis factors were also applied and found to be valid in this instance.

Writing is not something I do every day. I avoid using absolute words, such as “always” and “never.” This can even be proved wrong by a single example. Indeed, one case where the Supreme Court reversed a previous ruling is such. Absolutely The decisions were wrong without considering any additional facts or legal arguments.

Hepburn v. Griswold1870), The Court found that Congress was unable to require individuals to accept paper money as legal tender. What was the time? HepburnNovember 1869 was the date for arguments. Only eight Justices were on the bench. Following arguments, the vote was 5-3. According to Chief Justice Chase, the majority of judges ruled that Legal Tender Act wasn’t constitutional. Justice Grier was in poor health when he resigned on January 1870. The final vote was then taken to 4-3. After HepburnJustices Strong & Bradley were selected by President Grant. Grant was also known to have supported paper money being legal tender. Five Justices believed that the Legal Tender Act had been constitutional after their confirmations. A year later, however, the Court reversed itself. Knox v. Lee1871 ruled that the Legal Tender Act is constitutional. Hepburn was overthrown by 5-4 votes.

KnoxChief Justice Chase’s dissension spoke out about the Court’s decision to look decisis.

Five to four judges voted to reverse the decision of the five-to-three court. This was in accordance with an opinion that had been formed after multiple arguments, at successive terms and careful consideration. This reversal is unprecedented in court history. It was not possible to change the opinions of anyone who had participated in the previous judgment. . The opinion in Hepburn v. Griswold is ours. Reflection has made us more confident in our belief in the validity of constitutional doctrines and their importance to the country.

Justice Stevens is the paraphrase Citizens UnitedThat is the only difference between them. Hepburn KnoxThe Court was composed. Knox v. Lee Justice Alito then asked exactly about the following: In a span of one years, the Supreme Court reversed itself based solely on the conclusion the earlier decision had been wrong.

Randy and me discuss these two cases in 100 Casings. It’s amazing that they haven’t been mentioned in the moots of SolicitorGeneral.