Abstract
This Note examines the Supreme Court’s growing practice of “silent overruling," the effective displacement of precedent without explicit acknowledgment, and argues that this phenomenon threatens transparency, stability, and public trust in the judiciary. While the doctrine of stare decisis is intended to promote consistency and predictability, the Court has increasingly relied on the vague and discretionary “unworkability” doctrine to justify departing from precedent without clearly articulating its reasoning. Focusing on the Court’s recent decision in City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, this Note argues that the Court silently overruled Robinson v. California while purporting not to reconsider it. In doing so, the Court expanded the meaning of “unworkability” beyond its traditional scope–a shift that enables the Court to reshape the law while avoiding the scrutiny that accompanies formal overruling. By tracing the historical development of the unworkability doctrine and demonstrating its inconsistent and circular application, this Note shows how silent overruling permits the Court to exercise broad interpretive discretion without meaningful accountability, including, overruling decisions based on unfavorable policy considerations. The result is a powerful doctrinal framework that obscures when and how the law changes, leaving lower courts, litigants, and the public without clear guidance. Ultimately, this Note calls for greater transparency when the Supreme Court departs from precedent. To preserve the rule of law, legitimacy, and judicial integrity, the Court must explicitly acknowledge when it overturns prior decisions and provide a clear, principled justification for doing so.
Recommended Citation
Sydney Washburn,
An Era of Silent Overruling: Lack of Transparency in the Supreme Court and the Expanding Unworkability Doctrine,
74 Clev. St. L. Rev.
1095
(2026)
available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev/vol74/iss4/10