Board of Educationin which the court held that the interest of the government, in its role as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees justifies restrictions of employee speech that would not otherwise be permissible under the First Amendment.
The Court will do so, the Constitution anticipates, by providing interpretations of the meaning of the Constitution, giving reasons for those interpretations, developing mediating principles, and crafting implementing frameworks to enable the document to function as in-court law.
Detroit Board of Education as the basis for overruling. But as the court has said time and again, mere disagreement with precedent is no basis for overruling it. If a case ruled in a Kansas court, which has abided by a certain precedent for decades, is taken to the U. That is what the Court in Janus said it had been doing the last six years.
This makes little sense. A continuous body would seem intentionally structured so as to give some weight to its past, and some thought to its future. Moreover, Article III envisions the Court as a continuous body, which never automatically turns over, the way the House turns over every two years and the presidency every four years.
Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. First, as the court put it in Vasquez v. But can the Court do anything to blunt or minimize the reliance costs when it wants to correct a past mistake?