•  
  •  
 

Abstract

Today’s legal and political landscape places heavy emphasis on the decisions handed down by nine illustrious jurists—the sitting Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. These decisions, like the Justices themselves, are often characterized as purely political. From left and right, accusations of partisanship and judicial activism hurtle toward the Court with increasing velocity and regularity. On June 6, 2022, the Court released one of the most significant and controversial decisions in its history when it overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, holding that the Constitution does not recognize a right for a woman to obtain an abortion. Because of the heated political debate surrounding the subject of abortion, the Court’s decision poses a question about its own role and authority: To what extent should the Court consider the impact that overruling precedent has on its perceived legitimacy?

Within the context of the divide between the Dobbs majority and dissent, this Note explores the Court’s present stare decisis doctrine and the relevant principles of judicial integrity and judicial independence. Recognizing the importance of both to a functioning judiciary—and, by extension, a functioning constitutional system—this Note locates the source of the Court’s actual integrity in its constitutionally defined role. Because the Framers established the Court to interpret and apply the laws of the nation and serve as a check on the political branches of government, that role is the necessary origin of a truly legitimate judiciary. This Note then proposes the beginnings of an approach to stare decisis that builds upon the principles undergirding the Dobbs majority’s stare decisis analysis and incorporates valid concerns raised by the dissent. Such an approach may offer a chance for the weakest branch of government to wed the actual integrity found in principled adjudication with the public perception of integrity necessary for a functioning Court. Without seeking to protect both actual and perceived integrity, the judiciary risks forsaking its purpose in the American system of government and endangering the constitutional structure itself.

Download

Included in

Law Commons

Share

COinS