Abrogating Stare Decisis by Statute: May Congress Remove the Precedential Effect of Roe and Casey?

By Paulsen, Michael Stokes | The Yale Law Journal, May 2000 | Go to article overview

Abrogating Stare Decisis by Statute: May Congress Remove the Precedential Effect of Roe and Casey?


Paulsen, Michael Stokes, The Yale Law Journal


I. INTRODUCTION

Stare decisis, the Supreme Court has often reminded us, is a rule of policy, not a rule of law. This is especially tree in constitutional cases, the Court has said repeatedly, because of the difficulty of overturning one of the Court's constitutional decisions by way of constitutional amendment.(1)

Nonetheless, the Court has occasionally relied on stare decisis as an apparently near-dispositive factor in deciding some extremely important constitutional cases, while at the same time continuing to express the view that stare decisis is not a doctrine of constitutional dimension. Most famously and recently, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey,(2) the Court reaffirmed its controversial holding in Roe v. Wade(3) recognizing a constitutional right to abortion, and did so largely on the basis of the policy of stare decisis.(4) The Court was reluctant--especially so the three Justices authoring the "joint opinion" for the Court in the case (Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter)--to embrace as correct the substantive due process jurisprudence of Roe. The opinion expressed the apparent doubts of at least some of the Justices constituting the majority about the correctness of Roe as an original matter and the morality of a constitutional right to abortion as a general proposition. Nonetheless, the policy of stare decisis persuaded a narrow majority (5-4) to reaffirm Roe, notwithstanding these reservations.(5)

I have criticized the Court's opinion in Casey in other writing, challenging its reliance on stare decisis and arguing that stare decisis is often merely a disingenuous "cover" for a decision made on other grounds.(6) My goal here, however, is to take seriously the Court's stated reliance on stare decisis in Casey as a good-faith position sincerely adopted by the authors of the joint opinion. At the same time, I wish to take seriously the Court's position that stare decisis is neither a doctrine of constitutional dimension nor a strict rule of law, but rather is a subconstitutional doctrine of ostensibly wise judicial practice, procedure, and policy. Accepting both of these propositions, I wish to address whether Congress may abrogate stare decisis in a particular class of constitutional cases (or in federal question cases generally), and direct the federal courts to decide such cases(7) in accordance with the courts' best present understanding of the meaning of the Constitution, without according prior judicial interpretations any decision-altering weight beyond the persuasiveness of their reasoning. The upshot of such a statute would be that courts would be obliged to overrule a prior interpretation of the Constitution if persuaded that the prior interpretation was incorrect on the merits.(8)

In treating this question, I will not indulge in the usual academic pretense (which is almost invariably a pretense) of dispassionate neutrality. I have written on the abortion issue before, and my view that Roe is fundamentally illegitimate (and immoral) is well-documented.(9) Nor do I wish to hide my purpose here. My motivation for writing, revealed in the style of my presentation, is one that openly reflects a desire that Roe be overturned.(10) My analysis, however (as distinguished from my motivation), is not, I hope, result-driven or result-bound. The skeptical reader may put that to the test: If sound, my thesis should be fully generalizable across the entire range of constitutional issues. If Congress may abrogate the stare decisis effect of Roe and Casey, in effect requiring the Court to reconsider the abortion issue on a clean slate, it may do the same for, say, Bowers v. Hardwick,(11) a controversial constitutional holding that engenders equally strong views (reflecting, typically, different political alignments).(12) The argument that I offer here is content-neutral. The merit of the argument does not depend on the issue for which it is advanced. Accordingly, I challenge the skeptical reader to substitute the issue of his or her choice--we all have our lists of most-despised precedents--as a way of testing the thesis. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Abrogating Stare Decisis by Statute: May Congress Remove the Precedential Effect of Roe and Casey?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.