The Devil is in the Dicta - Stare Decisis Update

We had some concerns about Stare Decisis. It turns out the devil is in the dicta. While Senators worry about whether Supreme Court candidates will follow this doctrine, they forgot to ask what portions of Griswald, Roe, and other cases asked about were dicta. Both sides of the debate may soon learn that a commitment to stare decisis is like a wedding vow from Joan Collins.

If you want to see how a Court can sidestep previous holdings, while honoring Stare Decisis, we need turn the clock way back to January 23, 2006. In CENTRAL VIRGINIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ET AL. v. KATZ, LIQUIDATING SUPERVISOR FOR WALLACE'S BOOKSTORES, INC. No. 04 - 885. Argued October 31, 2005 Decided January 23, 2006 the US Supreme Court said:

We acknowledge that statements in both the majority and the dissenting opinions in Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44 (1996), reflected an assumption that the holding in that case would apply to the Bankruptcy Clause. See also Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, 492 U. S. 96, 105 (1989) (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Careful study and reflection have convinced us, however, that that assumption was erroneous. For the reasons stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264 (1821), we are not bound to follow our dicta in a prior case in which the point now at issue was not fully debated. See id., at 399–400 ("It is a maxim not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision").

Bonus - Supreme Court warns footnote is dicta, but adds "endnotes still reliable". (January 23, 2006 too... hmmm) WISCONSIN RIGHT TO LIFE, INC., APPELLANT v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

So now you can see why we think the Devil is in the Dicta