![](https://d3ilqtpdwi981i.cloudfront.net/kYjeiep7Oy8B_48dJZCrJvrL2hQ=/425x550/smart/https://bepress-attached-resources.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/dc/50/2a/dc502a1e-b274-482d-ba12-fd4360f9b7bf/thumbnail_e02edcce-a80b-4816-bda4-1f050d8d3f55.jpg)
Article
Special Justifications
Journal Articles
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
10-1-2018
Disciplines
Publication Information
33 Const. Comment. 471 (2018)
Abstract
The Supreme Court commonly asks whether there is a “special justification” for departing from precedent. In this Response, which is part of a Constitutional Commentary symposium on Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, I examine the existing law of special justifications and describe its areas of uncertainty. I also compare the Court’s current doctrine with a revised approach to special justifications designed to separate the question of overruling from deeper disagreements about legal interpretation. The aspiration is to establish precedent as a unifying force that enhances the impersonality of the Court and of the law, promoting values the Justices have described as fundamental.
Citation Information
Randy J Kozel. "Special Justifications" (2018) Available at: http://works.bepress.com/randy_kozel/26/