Doubting Thomas and Questioning Stare Decisis Under the Roberts Court

Abstract

The article critically examines the erosion of stare decisis under the Roberts Court, highlighting concerns about the Supreme Court\u27s increasing willingness to overturn established precedents. While acknowledging the importance of stare decisis in maintaining stability and equality, the author argues that its practical value is being undermined by ideological polarization and a departure from traditional legal reasoning. The article questions the Court\u27s recent approach to precedent, particularly in cases like Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u27s Health Organization and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, and critiques the conservative majority\u27s aggressive use of judicial power