"The 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court will decide what they want and then try to rationalize it," one First Amendment ...

Playing a guessing game with the opinions and reasonings of Supreme Court Justices does a disservice to the rule of law ...

Frederick Schauer, a University of Virginia School of Law professor who has written on Supreme Court precedents, said Gorsuch's opinion represents "a handbook for any justice who wants to not ...

When Are Supreme Court Precedents 'Fair Game'? "We're not going to throw out all our precedents because we've decided that there's a better way to interpret statutes," Justice Elena Kagan said.

Ferguson — overturned previous Supreme Court case law. If the justices had clung inexorably to stare decisis, Alito said, precedent from 1905’s Lochner v. New York would have prohibited state ...

A demonstrator outside the Supreme Court building expresses fear that other precedents will fall, too. AP Photo/Jose Luis MaganaIt is a central principle of law: Courts, including the Supreme ...

The Supreme Court’s Hyatt decision shows how partisan and disrespectful of precedent it's become. Justice Breyer is right that Roe v. Wade is at risk, but it isn't doomed.

More recently, the court has held (in 2003, when overturning a 1986 precedent upholding the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws) that stare decisis is not “an inexorable command.” Quite right.

Last month, the Supreme Court reversed the Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, a 1984 precedent that The New York Times called "one of the most cited in American law." ...

OPINION: Some judicial precedents are apparently more equal — and more sacrosanct — than others, at least in the eyes of the liberal justices of the Supreme Court.. What else can we conclude ...

The Supreme Court expressed its concern over the Enforcement Directorate summoning lawyers for client representation. Highlighting the erosion of legal independence, the court called for guidelines ...

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Texas abortion law affirms an ... judicial scrutiny and to just act as if states can flagrantly violate the federal supremacy clause on well-settled legal precedents.