# Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever completely reversed a ruling? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 5, 2002, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923 "2002-10-05T02:26:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/1 "2002-10-05T02:26:52Z")
The Roe VS Wade decision broadly established\* a “right to privacy” that included the right to consider abortion a personal health matter. Lots of people would like to see this ruling overturned. But has the SCOTUS _ever_ flat-out said “we were wrong” about a previous ruling? Legally, how could it, and on what grounds? I don’t mean merely that some rulings (e.g. Dred Scot) became dead letters because of constitutional amendments, but were actually declared erroneous? (\*technically that is to say, proclaimed the existence of a previously unrecognized unenumerated right.) ---
**Author:** ![JohnW77707](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d2c977/32.png) [@JohnW77707](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnW77707)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/2 "2002-10-05T03:09:01Z")
Yes. Some notable examples: Penry(?) and the other case where the death penalty was declared unconstitutional and then OK within 10? years. Also National League of Cities v. Usery was one of two cases that held completely different within 10? years. Also there were some “oops” decisions during the 1920s and 1930s regarding the Commerce Clause, once that Depression and the New Deal set in. JohnW77707, Esq. ---
**Author:** ![Mighty\_Maximino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e95f7d/32.png) [@Mighty\_Maximino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mighty_Maximino)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/3 "2002-10-05T03:30:30Z")
_Plessy v. Ferguson_ got torpedoed during the civil rights era. ---
**Author:** ![Ringo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/779978/32.png) [@Ringo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ringo)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/4 "2002-10-05T03:36:07Z")
My layman’s understanding is that the Supremes interpret the Constitution as it applies to the cases at hand and have the ability to decide that previous Supremes interpreted it incorrectly. Read the dissenting opinions sometime. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/5 "2002-10-05T07:15:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mighty Maximino \* > \*\*_Plessy v. Ferguson_ got torpedoed during the civil rights era. \*\* The actual language from the majority opinion in [Brown v. Board of Education.](http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html) \*"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system. Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of **Plessy v. Ferguson,** this finding is amply supported by modern authority. Any language in \*\*Plessy v. Ferguson \*\*contrary to this finding is rejected. We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."\* So, yes, the Supreme Court has explicity overruled one of its previous decisions. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/6 "2002-10-05T10:22:59Z")
The _Gobitis_ decision, requiring American schoolchildren to salute the flag, was overruled by the decision of _West Virginia Board of Education_, about 1943. Some Jehovah’s witnesses had objected to the flag salute; in _Gobitis,_ the Court ruled against them, and in _West Virginia_ the Court reversed the _Gobitis_ ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 11:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/7 "2002-10-05T11:05:55Z")
The death penalty cases are the best example of this, however. _Furman v. Georgia_ “restored” the death penalty, but the SC did not overrule the previous case (_Gregg_?) that “removed” the death penalty. In the first case, the SC simply said that the death penalty, as then constructed, was flawed. The ruling invalidated the then-current death penalty cases in every single state. State legislatures then rushed to re-write statutes in a manner consistent with the Court’s language. The revised language was tested in _Furman_ and the Court said it passed muster. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/8 "2002-10-05T14:10:12Z")
Erm, no, **Bricker** , I wouldn’t say that “the death penalty” is the best example of this. (incidentally, _Furman v. Georgia_ was the “death penalty bad” case, and _Gregg v. Georgia_ was the “death penalty good” case). The reason I don’t think it applies here is that the Supreme Court’s decision in _Furman_ didn’t actually prohibit the application of the death penalty -how could it, when the Constitution allows it? - but only the manner in which it was then applied in sentencing. Once the states had revised their death penalty statutes, they began applying death sentences again -and the court found, in _Gregg_, that Georgia’s DP law (and by implication, other laws along the same model) addressed all of the court’s original objections and was therefore kosher to apply. These two rulings were logically consistent, and didn’t require rejection of any earlier findings - it just so happens that, for a while there, no state could have executed someone sentenced under their old laws. The court never ruled the death penalty itself unconstitutional, because it isn’t. (I’m anti-DP, btw, but I thought I should clarify **Bricker** ’s post a bit.) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/9 "2002-10-05T16:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Some Guy \* > \*\* > > Sorry, you can not add yourself to your own list. -The Board > > \*\* [absolutely total hijack], but I can’t help it. You _can_ sometimes add you own name to the list and get away with it. According to writer H. Allen Smith, columnist Franklin Pierce Adams was in the AEF in France right after WWI ended. His CO told him to make up a list of those who should be returned first to the US. Adams asked if there were any ground rules about who should be on the list and the CO said no, anyone you want, just use you own judgement. The name **Adams, Franklin Pierce** was the first name on the list.[/absolutely total hijack] ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/10 "2002-10-05T19:11:49Z")
Back in high school, we watched a movie about the case where the right to have an an attorney was recognized. IIRC, it was stated that the courts had previously ruled that there was no such right, and then they began to backpeddle with some BS about people in “special circumstances” getting court-appointed counsels, and then finally they ruled that everyone has a right to have an lawyer. So that would seem to be a case where there was a full reversal, albeit in multiple steps. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/11 "2002-10-05T20:01:08Z")
Some Guy writes: \> . . . how could it, when the Constitution allows it? I don’t recall any section of the Constitution that explicitly allows the death penalty. Mere mention of the death penalty is not the same as requiring that it exist. I can even imagine circumstances in which the Supreme Court could declare the death penalty unconstitutional in all circumstances. When recently they declared that mentally retarded people can’t be executed anymore, they said that it was because there are now 30 states that disallow execution of the retarded. The Supreme Court said that because relatively few states execute the retarded, it is now a cruel and unusual punishment. One can thus imagine circumstances in which so many states ban execution that the Supreme Court decides that it at that point has become a cruel and unusual punishment. NOTE: I am not advocating that this should happen. I am not saying that this is the best way to eliminate the death penalty. I am not predicting that this will happen. I’m just saying that it’s possible to see how this could happen. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/12 "2002-10-05T20:30:00Z")
That movie was “Gideon’s Trumpet” about _Gideon v. Wainright_, **Diceman** , which overruled _Betts v. Brady_ (requiring counsel only in “special circumstances”), which overruled _Powell v. Alabama_ (requiring counsel only for capital cases). Most reversals come about incrementally, but occasionally the Court will do a complete 180, _Brown v. Board_ and _Plessy_ being the best example. _Lochner v. New York_ was overruled by _Nebbia v. New York_, _Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida_ overruled _Pennsylvania v. Union Gas_, _Garcia v. San Antonio Metropoitan Transit Authority_ ovveruled _National Leauge of Cities v. EEOC_, yadda yadda yadda. It doesn’t happen every single term but it happens semi-frequently. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/13 "2002-10-05T20:48:29Z")
Sorry, that last one should be _National Leauge of Cities v. Usery_. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/14 "2002-10-05T21:16:35Z")
Um - at the risk of sounding defensive, I’d like to clarify that I inadvertantly left out the word ‘not’ from my post above. My intent was to say that the death penalty cases were not a good example of out and out reversal, as my text indicated. Thanks, **Some Guy** , for clarifying this issue. My poor proofreading was the error. - Rick ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2002, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/15 "2002-10-05T21:34:29Z")
There was also the one man/one vote case in the early 60s. Previously the court had ruled that they had no right to enforce even clear provisions of state constitutions requiring redistricting every 10 years that some states had ignored for a half century. When they finally changed their minds, not only did they decided they could force states to follow their own constitutions, but went considerable further and ruled that many provisions of state constitutions were unconsitutional (in conflict with the US constitution). Examples were NJ senate with one senator from each county (probably varying in size by a factor of a 100) and the PA that limited any county to no more than 10% of either house, even though Philly had 1/8 of the population. (My memory for the details could be wrong, but the basic facts are right.) One of the New England states (VT?) had a state legislative district with 4 registered voters. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/16 "2002-10-06T06:52:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Um - at the risk of sounding defensive, I’d like to clarify that I inadvertantly left out the word ‘not’ from my post above. My intent was to say that the death penalty cases were not a good example of out and out reversal, as my text indicated. Thanks, **Some Guy** , for clarifying this issue. My poor proofreading was the error. > > - Rick \*\* Hey, shit happens. No prob. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Wendell Wagner_ > \*\* > I don’t recall any section of the Constitution that explicitly allows the death penalty. Mere mention of the death penalty is not the same as requiring that it exist. How 'bout Amendment Number [Five](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5)? > [@](#): > > No person shall be held to answer for a capital [\*\*please note the existence of this word \*\* - yr humb. ed.], or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger […] That “unless” sure seems to be implying that it’s okay under the listed circumstances, and the courts agree. “Mere mention” is certainly enough to ensure that it can exist, and that’s all that’s necessary. I’d like nothing more than for the death penalty to go away as soon as possible, but the only way for this to happen is via an amendment to the Constitution, specifically modifying the language above. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/17 "2002-10-06T06:54:44Z")
Bloody coding errors. Hey, **Bricker** , I’ll bet I do that a lot more often than you forget to say “not” :). ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/18 "2002-10-06T16:04:37Z")
No, I don’t see that at all, Some Guy. What the Fifth Amendment does is restrict the circumstances under which the death penalty can be applied. Mentioning something while restricting its application is not the same as allowing something. I think the problem here is what’s called implicature in linguistics. What the constitution says is that “X may only be done if condition Y is true.” In a case like this, there’s an assertion: “Don’t do X unless Y is true.” Your argument is that there’s another statement buried in there: “You are allowed to do X when Y is true.” At most, this is implied by the statement. It’s certainly not asserted. I think we can argue whether it’s even implied for that matter. If the Supreme Court were to argue that “cruel and unusual punishment” includes any application of the death penalty, that would override any implication of the Fifth Amendment, even if there really is any such implication. Once again, I am not advocating that the court do this. I am not predicting that the court will do this. I don’t even think that this would be the best way for the death penalty to be eliminated. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2002, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-ever-completely-reversed-a-ruling/130923/19 "2002-10-06T19:39:00Z")
**Wendell** : well, we disagree, obviously. Since this discussion is both a debate and a hijack, however, I’ve taken the liberty of starting [a thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=138291) over in GD on the subject. I hope to see more discussion over there, rather than more hijacking over here. Anyone else with an opinion on the subject is welcome as well, of course.