


























Final Chen, Alex.docx


Bellarmine Law Society Review

Volume XIII | Issue II Article I

Finding Judicial Constellations: A Relational Thematic Content Analysis of
Stare Decisis During the Roberts Court

Alex Chen
West Chester East High School, alexwchen39@gmail.com



FINDING JUDICIAL CONSTELLATIONS: A RELATIONAL THEMATIC CONTENT

ANALYSIS OF STARE DECISIS DURING THE ROBERTS COURT

ALEX CHEN 1

Abstract: The Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the long-standing precedent
Roe v. Wade has cast uncertainty over the future of stare decisis application and
interpretation. As the Court continues to shift ideologically, understanding the
thematic frameworks in cases that fail to abide by the doctrine could prove
valuable in consolidating an approach to the Roberts Court’s interpretation of
stare decisis. This paper explores a set of cases, the relationships between them,
and the underlying themes in opinion rationale in order to unearth the intentions
and potential implications of the Roberts Court’s stare decisis application.

Introduction

On June 24th, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in

the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), reversing its nearly

fifty-year-old precedent in Roe v. Wade (1973) and subsequently overturning the federal right to

an abortion.2 While outrage and controversy diffused across the nation, the interest in a singular

two-word term among citizens and scholars alike spiked: stare decisis. Translated literally from

Latin as “to stand by things decided,” stare decisis is the legal and judicial doctrine that

encourages, if not constrains, courts to abide by their previous decisions.3 Thus, it enshrines

precedent and creates a steady hand in the judicial sphere. The Supreme Court in Dobbs elected

to break with the doctrine of stare decisis in overruling Roe.

With many recent decisions from the Court overturning past precedents, a shifting

understanding of a modern interpretation of stare decisis has arisen. Despite the notion that

precedent is ideally binding, decisions like Dobbs have suggested that precedent is less binding

than previously thought. This problem has negatively affected the ability of judges, lawyers, and

3 “Understanding Stare Decisis.” American Bar. December 16, 2022. https://rb.gy/ofh7q4.

2 Sherman, Mark, “Supreme Court Overturns Roe v. Wade; States Can Ban Abortion.” AP News. June 24, 2022.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-supreme-court-decision-854f60302f21c2c35129e58cf8d8a7b0.

1 Alex Chen is a senior at West Chester East High School in Pennsylvania. At school, Alex advocates for bylaws and
social structures to increase student representation. He has competed in the Harlan Institute Moot Supreme Court
Competition, placing second nationally for the Petitioner position this year. His interests surround how the law
interacts and influences communities, and he hopes that his research can underscore steps that legislators at all levels
should consider. Upon graduation, Alex hopes to study Government and one day attend law school.

4



scholars to understand, interpret, and apply stare decisis because of the recent shifting

justifications for overturning precedent. Indeed, stare decisis’ newest applications have shown

“alarming effects … on legal stability, doctrinal consistency, and judicial legitimacy.”4 At the

public level, decisions like Dobbs have led to 53% of Americans having “little or no trust in the

Supreme Court to operate in the best interests of the American people.”5 This has led scholars to

stress the importance of restoring a consolidated understanding of the doctrine in order to

“reestablish the public’s faith.”6 To rectify this, many scholars have sought to create

comprehensive guides to Supreme Court stare decisis.7 However, in many cases, these guides fall

short in analyzing the rationale of the cases in question.

Thus, in order to address this exceedingly relevant research issue, further investigation

into the doctrine’s relationship with the Court is necessary. The key to understanding the Court’s

interpretation of stare decisis lies in the rationale of their opinions that deal with breaking or

overturning the doctrine. It is there that the Court reveals its justification or adds understanding

to the doctrine. In sidestepping stare decisis, the Court typically outlines — in a summary known

as a syllabus — the primary component or case supporting their justification. Still, this

conversation is not new; in fact, the Court has weighed in on stare decisis dozens of times since

Chief Justice John Roberts assumed his position and began the Roberts Court. Indeed, each

overturned case revitalizes the scholarly conversation surrounding the doctrine in some way.

In investigating individual cases over a set time period where stare decisis was not

followed and looking at the primary reasons in its rationale, one can evaluate the changing

foundation for the doctrine and, in turn, provide insight into the legal sphere and the American

public as a whole.

Literature Review

The existing literature surrounding this research primarily weaves findings from four

major works; collectively, they analyze the Supreme Court’s interpretation and application of

7 Murrill, Brandon, “The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent.” Congressional Research
Service. September 24, 2018. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45319.

6 Tilghman, James, “Restoring Stare Decisis in the Wake of Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31” New York Law School
Law Review, 64(2), (2019), 136.

5 “Over Half of Americans Disapprove of Supreme Court as Trust Plummets.” Annenberg Public Policy Center
October 10, 2022. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events/news/over-half-americans-disapprove-supreme-court-
trust-plummets.

4 Gerhardt, Michael J., “The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decisionmaking and Theory.” George Washington
Law Review. (1991). 83. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/980/.

5



stare decisis from a thorough spectrum of approaches. Despite their individual contributions to

the scholarly canon, they fail to connect to each other in a manner that creates a cohesive picture.

Nestled between the extent of their research, there exists an ever-present academic gap. Through

detailing each, this literature review will unravel the complex connections between them and

bring to light the components that have yet to dovetail and give way to my research.

Professor Michael Gerhardt’s famous publication on precedent’s influence on

decision-making provides an exceedingly comprehensive view of the topic. He identifies “two

kinds of structural functions” that “maintain government operations and relationships” and

“inform the choices … of other branches.”8 Along with historical purposes, these functions

provide for the role of precedent on the Supreme Court. Although precedent is often used to

“immunize prior decisions from overruling,” ultimately, it is not an unbreakable tenet of the

Court.9 Throughout his research, he looks not only at “what the Court already has decided

expressly” but also why stare decisis was applied.10 Using a wide range of cases, he expounds on

the doctrine’s ability to provide a scope for approaching familiar cases. In short, through

analyzing dozens of important cases, he finds that the role of stare decisis is to provide stability

in the application of the law. Although they clearly establish the role of precedent, Gerhardt’s

findings do not explicitly detail the broader reasons that are considered by the Court when

determining when and how to apply precedent.

Looking at monumental decisions such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Randy Kozel

established these very reasons when exploring the details of judicial doctrine in stare decisis.

Publishing his work in the Washington and Lee Law Review, he conducted his research by

analyzing and summarizing findings from keystone cases on stare decisis. His findings worked

“to isolate the various components of the Supreme Court’s stare decisis jurisprudence and to

study their individual and collective functions.”11 Despite discovering precedent to be

collectively “indeterminate,” Kozel succeeded in unearthing a number of primary factors in the

rationale of applying stare decisis: soundness, workability, and reliance.12 In other words, the

12 Id. at 465.
11 Kozel, Randy, “Stare Decisis as Judicial Doctrine,”Washington & Lee Law Review, 67(2) (2010), 414.
10 Gerhardt, “The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decisionmaking and Theory,” 77.

9 Id. at 77.
8 Gerhardt, “The Role of Precedent in Constitutional Decisionmaking and Theory,” 86.

6



Court may maintain or overrule a precedent because of the quality of its reasoning, its ability to

be shaped, and whether its absence would be detrimental to legal doctrine.

Combining the research of both Gerhardt and Kozel, Segal and Spaeth looked at the roles

and factors of stare decisis to determine the doctrine’s influence on the votes of individual

justices in 346 landmark cases. They found that individual justices (with the exceptions of

Justices Powell and Stewart) were not influenced by the roles and factors of precedents they

disagree with ideologically.13 Most notably, Segal and Spaeth brought the use of content analysis

as a research method for analyzing Court precedents into the scholarly conversation. Their

substantial use of past cases represents a quantitative analysis. In line with previous research,

their extraction of ideas about Gerhardt’s roles and Kozel’s factors from the philosophies of

individual justices is a strong qualitative addition to the research. Segal and Spaeth, however, did

not explore the influence of stare decisis on the Court as a whole, specifically, the rationale

found in the final opinions of the Court.

Fowler and his colleagues used a full Court content analysis in their research that

determined “case centrality” or a “complete network of 26,681 majority opinions written by the

U.S. Supreme Court” to “identify the most legally relevant precedents.”14 Their findings, as

published in the peer-reviewed journal Political Analysis, demonstrated a systematic approach to

evaluating which cases were cited the most by other cases.15 Furthermore, their research marks

the first time case mapping was used to find connections between cases. Despite its groundwork

in content analysis research of the Supreme Court, the publication does not apply case mapping

to stare decisis and, specifically, its rationale to draw connections. Moreover, Fowler and his

colleagues’ work concludes at the beginning of the ascension of Chief Justice Roberts in 2005.

In total, these four publications combine and share key research findings on the judicial

application and interpretation of stare decisis. Yet, they leave a considerable gap in the existing

literature. While Gerhardt and Kozel give foundation to the doctrine by determining the role and

rationale, they do not explore its application to reversals in Court rationale. Similarly, while

Segal and Spaeth explore its application to rationale, they fail to do so at a Court-wide scale,

15 Id. at 324–346.

14 Fowler et al., “Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the U.S.
Supreme Court.” Political Analysis, 15(3), (2007) 325. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25791897325.

13 Segal, J.A. and Spaeth, H.J., “The Influence of Stare Decisis on the Votes of United States Supreme Court
Justices,” American Journal of Political Science, 40(4), (1996) 971–1003. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111738.

7



leaving valuable research out of the conversation. Furthermore, while research exists mapping

these doctrinal relationships on the Court, no mapping exists for the rationale of stare decisis

specifically. Throughout all of this, the four publications fail to apply their various findings to the

Roberts Court. Though inherently intertwined, the four works leave a gap in what primary

reasons of opinion rationale using stare decisis have revealed about the Roberts Court’s analysis

of precedent as a whole. Research is needed that can bring an understanding of the role and

rationale behind not abiding by stare decisis for the Court as a whole by mapping changes across

a modern time span.

Any resulting research would not only bridge key ideas from the aforementioned four

publications but also provide a new framework for understanding the shift and direction of the

Supreme Court’s application of stare decisis. This would be consequential to judges, scholars,

lawyers, and the public seeking to understand the doctrine.

Thus, this study seeks to address and close that gap with research regarding the following

research question: What have the primary rationales in the opinions of cases that overturned

precedent revealed about changes to the Supreme Court’s application of stare decisis during the

Roberts Court? For the purposes of this research, “primary rationale” refers to the main reason

the Court did not apply stare decisis in all cases that overturned other cases. Additionally, the

Roberts Court refers to the timespan since Chief Justice Roberts led the Court: September 29th,

2005, to the present day. It must be noted that the key assumption was made that primary

rationales could be identified in all cases that overturned others.

Prior to conducting the research and in line with my research question, I hypothesized

that the primary rationales of many overturning cases would demonstrate a chronological

progression of more willingness to rely on the principles of stare decisis. This would indicate a

fundamental shift in the Court's outlook toward the future.

Methodology

My research utilized a relational thematic content analysis research method. To

standardize and establish what is specifically meant by a relational thematic content analysis for

the purposes of this study, a concrete definition has been provided and explicated. This definition

represents the paradigm on which I based my methodology.

8



Generally speaking, content analysis is “any technique for making inferences by

systematically and objectively identifying special characteristics of messages.”16 Researchers

‘code’ a set of media using regimented guidelines and then extrapolate qualitative conclusions

based on the quantifiable data set produced. Researchers may code for “words, themes, or

concepts” among other qualitative aspects; when researchers specifically code and search for

themes in a given set of media, the research method is known as a thematic content analysis.17

Moreover, this research employs a subset of the method known as relational content

analysis. This method adds a component that “involves exploring the relationships between

concepts. Individual concepts are viewed as having no inherent meaning and rather the meaning

is a product of the relationships among concepts.”18 In order to accomplish this, cognitive

mapping is typically used. Cognitive mapping can be defined as any “graphic map that

represents the relationships between concepts” in order to “create a model of the overall meaning

of the text.”19

In aggregate, these definitions provide the framework for what a relational thematic

content analysis establishes for my methodological path. The rationale behind my decision to use

this method stems from three primary reasons, each supporting a different component of what the

method entails.

First, I chose a content analysis method because using a large dataset of media (Supreme

Court opinions) would provide the greatest selection of insight into the Supreme Court’s

changing use of stare decisis. Since the Court writes its opinions over time, these insights can be

extrapolated chronologically and applied to see change over time.

Second, a thematic approach was taken because it offered the most comprehensive and

rational way to extract the broader concepts, something words or paragraphs alone would be

insufficient to achieve. These themes could additionally be coded such that the primary rationale

behind the reversal of a precedent could conveniently be categorized as the theme itself.

Third, because Supreme Court opinions are intrinsically related to other opinions, the

relations between cases were considered. The only way to accomplish this was to incorporate the

19 Id.
18 Id.

17 “Content Analysis.” Columbia Mailman School of Public Health. 2019. https://www.asc.upenn.edu/news-events
/news/over-half-americans-disapprove-supreme-court-trust-plummets.

16 Holsti, O. R. “Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities.” Addison-Wesley Pub. 1969. 3.

9



relational aspect of content analysis. In order to visualize this component, the aforementioned

process of cognitive mapping was produced to demonstrate relationships.

Overall, this methodological design aligns incredibly well with my research question

because it produces a useful quantitative data set of themes based on complex qualitative Court

opinions. When mapped, this data set can be interpreted, and conclusions regarding the themes in

the primary rationale of opinions can be made to determine changes in the interpretation of stare

decisis. This is crucial because both substantive data and defensible inferential analysis could be

interlaced.

Furthermore, concepts from both Segal and Spaeth’s research and Fowler and his

colleagues’ research served as very broad guidelines. This research also deals with large

quantities of case data, similar to Segal and Spaeth’s work; likewise, case mapping is performed

similarly to Fowler’s work. Although no explicit methodology is copied, replicated, or simulated

from either’s research, it should still be acknowledged that these ideas were inspirational to my

research.

Given all this, I followed three distinct steps, each with its own substeps, to gather my

research data: selection, coding, and organization.

First, I had to choose how to select the media set I would perform the thematic analysis

on. While some researchers may select a group of 100 songs or 30 news articles, I selected all of

the cases that overturned other Supreme Court cases from September 29th, 2005, to the present. I

did this because these cases would give the most insight into stare decisis. I was able to select

these cases out of over a thousand based on explicit lists from two reputable sources.20, 21 Cases

appearing on both sources were kept. Cases on one but not the other were scanned for an explicit

mention of overturning a precedent in the opinion or a legal scholastic appraisal indicating that a

de facto overturning occurred. If either of these conditions were met, the case was kept in the set.

This ensured high accuracy. Future research could easily apply this using the same data lists over

any timespan of interest.

Second, the primary rationales had to be read for each case and categorized into an

extrapolatory theme. I identified the main case, principle, or reason behind the justification.

Take, for example, Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), a case that overturned a precedent from the

21 “Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions.” Constitution Annotated. (n.d.).
https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/.

20 Murrill, “The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent,” 27–50.

10



1980s. The Court’s opinion primarily cites one individual case to defend stare decisis’ absence:

Janus v. AFSCME (2018). While clearly, expository case information about stare decisis is

present in the opinion, the main reason for their decision explicitly states the use of factors from

Janus, as pictured below.

(Knick v. Township of Scott, 2019, slip op. at 20).22

This process was repeated for each case with varying rationales resulting from each. The

primary rationale for all cases was identified — for the sake of replicability — by either one of

two indicators: an explicit explanation or the presence of the explicit reason in the syllabus. A

hypothetical example of this would be an objective citation of four separate cases that establish

why stare decisis did not counsel the decision. Alternatively, a hypothetical general description

of the principle based on decades of precedent in the syllabus would also constitute the primary

rationale. This approach was used because it offered the least subjective approach to extracting

rationales. Common threads for the nature of the primary rationale were conglomerated into

groups that represented overarching themes. These themes were meticulously defined to ensure

future researchers could replicate them.

The organization of these rationales was the crucial final step in my research. Once the

qualitative data was collected, it was tabled, graphed on time, and cognitively mapped. This

visualization was critical in determining the relationship between cases and projecting these

results to a broader scale.

Limitations

In my methodology, there exist inherent limitations that should be considered and

acknowledged. The preeminent limitation present was the human bias in converting extremely

22 “Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647,” United States Supreme Court. June 21, 2019.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-647_m648.pdf.

11



sophisticated and complex legal rationales into subjective themes. It is thus plausible that

because of the more qualitative nature of thematic content analyses, my own evaluation and

judgment skewed the data. Although my themes for primary rationale are defined quite

explicitly, it is still possible that human error in misinterpretation or misattribution of rationale

gently influenced the results. Consequently, I may have misassigned cases. Since I do not

possess formal educational training in law, my evaluation of the rationale and justification may

not encompass the same effectuated assessment that a scholar or attorney would. It is also

possible that the two lists of overturned cases have differing definitions that leave valuable case

data omitted. Accordingly, the conclusions this research finds should be contextualized within

these limitations.

Findings

After completion of the selection of cases steps, exactly twenty cases from the Roberts

Court that overturned precedent were identified. These cases were all doubly appearing or

scholastically verified from the two lists. Table 1 gives them in reverse chronological order.

Years that did not have any cases overturning precedent have been skipped over for the

convenience of the reader.

Furthermore, after application of the thematic categorization to the selected case opinions

above, five main themes for reasons the Court chose to break with stare decisis emerged: (1)

Direct Citation, (2) Eclectic, (3) Principle, (4) De Facto, and (5) Other. In Table 2, each primary

rationale theme has been clearly defined and categorized by the frequency of appearance.

These themes and their frequency were subsequently plotted over time in each year of the

Roberts Court. Doing so gave chronological perspective and aided in unearthing insights and

inferences about the Court. The graph in Figure 1 demonstrates this.

Finally, a cognitive map or ‘constellation’ that demonstrates the relational connections

between cases, especially those of the Direct Citation theme, was produced as seen in Figure 2.

The colors for each box indicate which primary rationale theme that case used and match the

colors in the legend of Figure 1. The arrows indicate the case that each case cited as its direct

citation for that theme. Time progresses right to left within the horizontal lane for each year.

Table 1, Table 2, Figure 1, and Figure 2 are produced below.

Table 1: Case Set

12



Year of Roberts Court Case(s) Overturning Precedent

2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Organization

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

2021 Edwards v. Vannoy

2020 Ramos v. Louisiana

2019 Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Herrera v. Wyoming

Knick v. Township of Scott

Rucho v. Common Cause

2018 Janus v. American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees, Council

31 (AFSCME)

South Dakota v. Wayfair

Trump v. Hawaii

2016 Hurst v. Florida

2015 Johnson v. United States

Obergefell v. Hodges

2013 Alleyne v. United States

13



2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election

Commission

2009 Montejo v. Louisiana

Pearson v. Callahan

2007 Bowles v. Russell

Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v.

PSKS Inc.

Table 2: Definitions and Thematic Frequency

Primary Rationale

Theme

Definition of Theme Number of Cases

Exhibiting Primary

Rationale Theme

Direct Citation The primary rationale for not abiding

by stare decisis relies chiefly on one

singular past decision during the

Roberts Court that is directly cited. If

a brief supplementary case is attached

to the rationale, it does not detract

from the main direct citation.

Expository details about the nature of

stare decisis neither detract from the

primary role of the direct citation nor

change the theme.

8

Eclectic The primary rationale for not abiding

by stare decisis relies chiefly on an

4

14



eclectic selection of cases that each

provide different and relatively equal

justification for the rationale.

Expository details about the nature of

stare decisis neither detract from the

cases nor change the theme.

Principle The primary rationale for not abiding

by stare decisis relies on decades or

centuries old concepts regarding the

broader nature or principles that

govern stare decisis. In order to meet

this theme, the Court may not fulfill

the “Direct Citation” or “Eclectic”

themes first. Expository details about

the nature of stare decisis do not affect

this primary theme.

3

De Facto The primary rationale for not abiding

by stare decisis is not expressly stated

or addressed. Rather, the decision to

overrule a past precedent is done de

facto by the nature of the opinion.

3

Other The primary rationale for not abiding

by stare decisis is addressed but not

by typical citation or principle. The

Court cites other authorities or special

circumstances. In order to meet this

theme, the Court may not fulfill the

“Direct Citation,” “Eclectic,” or

“Principle” themes first. Expository

2

15



details about the nature of stare

decisis do not affect this primary

theme.

Figure 1: Graph

16



17



Discussion

From the findings, two novel understandings emerge about changes to the Court’s

application of stare decisis during the Roberts Court. A thorough interpretation of the primary

rationales provides substantiation for these understandings. Since I performed a relational

thematic content analysis, the relationships between themes and cases formed the basis for these

new understandings.

First, in applying stare decisis the Court has demonstrated a new willingness to

consolidate Eclectic primary rationale authorities on stare decisis into a single case which can be

directly cited thereafter using the Direct Citation rationale theme. A fifth of cases utilized an

Eclectic primary rationale, illustrating the Court’s willingness to cite various cases and combine

them to formulate a justification. However, the high number of Eclectic rationales is masked by

these cases’ relationships with other cases. Three explicit progressions of cases and their

relationships to each other in the cognitive map provide evidentiary support for this study’s first

new understanding.

Between 2009 and 2010, the Court overturned three cases. The rationale relationship

between them demonstrates the consolidation of Eclectic rationale into a stream of Direct

Citation rationale. The Court first overruled a precedent from eight years prior in deciding

Pearson v. Callahan (2009), a case that used an Eclectic rationale as indicated by the cognitive

map. In doing so, the Court created a consolidated approach to stare decisis that not only

collected their past decisions but also could be cited individually as a cohesive authority. The

Court later that term decided Montejo v. Louisiana (2009) and, using the primary rationale of

Direct Citation, cited Pearson and its consolidated authority on stare decisis. This then created a

stream of citations with Citizens United v. FEC (2010) citing Montejo and thus indirectly citing

Pearson and all of its individual Eclectic citations as shown in Figure 2.

The Court repeated this process with Alleyne v. United States (2013) and Hurst v. Florida

(2016). Because Alleyne was justified using an Eclectic primary rationale, it was able to create a

consolidated rule that combined doctrine from multiple past cases. When combined, they

produced a rule that could be applied moving forward. In Hurst, the Court took advantage of this

convenient consolidation and used it to justify their overruling of precedent.

However, the most notable example of this Eclectic-to-Direct-Citation pipeline is Janus v.

AFSCME (2018) and the five subsequent cases that directly cite it as their primary rationale.

18



Decided in 2018, Janus utilized several different cases to justify overturning a past case. It

produced a consolidated rule that gave the Court an easy rationale to apply in the future

whenever it sought to break with stare decisis. As indicated by Figure 2, five cases, either

directly or through a stream of citations, all cite Janus as the primary rationale in justifying their

overruling of precedent: Knick v. Township of Scott (2019), Franchise v. Hyatt (2019), Ramos v.

Louisiana (2020), Edwards v. Vannoy (2021), and Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health

Organization (2022).

Collectively, these three separate instances of consolidating and directly citing Eclectic

opinions provide sufficient evidence that these thematic relationships are present. Looking

primarily at the cognitive map, the intrinsic relationship between these two themes delivers a

clear new understanding that could only be unearthed through my methodology.

More specifically, a second new understanding could also be made. Namely, the case

Janus v. AFSCME (2018) seems to be a powerful genesis and main authority for rationale that

breaks with stare decisis in the Court’s recent history. Looking at Figure 1 and Figure 2, it is

clear that Janus was the last time the Court applied any rationale other than Direct Citation or De

Facto. This is because it consolidated all other typically isolated rationales into a rule that has

been convenient to apply for future cases. In Janus, the Court collected different cases to identify

the quality of reasoning, workability, consistency, new developments, and reliance as the five

factors in sidestepping stare decisis.23 This is significant because it demarcates a substantial shift

away from justifying opinions with Eclectic and Principle primary rationale themes. This also

makes logical sense because these varying ideas and principles have already been consolidated

into a Direct Citation case. The cognitive map indicates a clear stream of cases that have all

either directly or indirectly relied on Janus’ consolidated rationale, something not seen anywhere

else in the Roberts Court. The density of Direct Citation themes in Table 2, when plotted

chronologically in Figure 1, shows how Janus has ignited a greater prevalence of reliance on the

case. Janus signifies this by being the midway point between the shift from Eclectic and

Principle themes to a Direct Citation theme. Therefore, it can be inferred that Janus is a large

reason behind Direct Citation being the most prevalent theme in Table 2. The increased

23 Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, No. 16-1466,” United
States Supreme Court. June 27, 2018. 34-35 at https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-1466_2b3j.pdf

19



application of Direct Citation themed cases suggests a willingness to apply the five-factor

consolidated rule in Janus and overturn more cases that systematically check the rule’s

requirements.

Although the findings of my research dealt with more than just an analysis of the

Principle theme, my hypothesis was still soundly rejected based on these two new conclusions.

Quite the opposite has been demonstrated to have occurred in the Court’s application of stare

decisis. Clearly, there has been less emphasis on the Principle primary rationale theme following

Janus.

With four new justices in just over five years, the Court is continuously changing its

approach to doctrines. Luckily, the scholarly conversation around stare decisis continues to grow,

and my research furthers the conversation with earlier research. It substantiates the idea that

Janus is a key case that has the potential for reshaping doctrine, as put forth by research from

Michael Gentithes.24 Also, my research expands on many of the capabilities of content analyses

in legal research that Hall and Wright put forth by using a thematic approach.25 Finally, it adapts

scholarly work from Fowler and his colleagues by applying case mapping to a different yet

specific aspect of the law. My research’s interconnectedness to other legal research helps to

improve our understanding of the Court.

Conclusion

Ultimately, this research was successful in identifying two new conclusions that fulfill the

research question: What have the primary rationales in the opinions of cases that overturned

precedent revealed about changes to the Supreme Court’s application of stare decisis during the

Roberts Court? Namely, the Court has both a new receptiveness to consolidating Eclectic

primary rationale authorities on stare decisis into a single citable Direction Citation theme case

and a newfound reliance on Janus v. AFSCME (2018) for justifying modern overturning of

precedent. This research underscores the importance of using creative but operationally effective

and well-defined methodology to understand changes to the Court’s interpretation of stare

decisis and successfully fill the intended gap.

25 Hall, M. A., and Wright, R. F., “Systematic Content Analysis of Judicial Opinions.” California Law Review,
96(1), (2008) 63–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20439171.

24 Gentithes, Michael, “Janus-Faced Judging: How the Supreme Court Is Radically Weakening Stare Decisis,”
William & Mary Law Review, 62(1) (2020).

20



This research has multiple key implications for the community of practice in the legal

field. In a scholarly sense, these findings add more analysis to Janus v. AFSCME (2018), a case

that has primarily been analyzed through a labor law perspective. By understanding that Janus

has effects in other fields, such as stare decisis, this research improves upon our understanding of

both the case and the doctrine. Additionally, this research expands on the abilities of case

mapping and thematic content analyses by producing interpretable results. Legal research is not

typically approached using content analyses, let alone a thematic one. The success of this

research hence affects the legal field by potentially expanding our tools for analyzing cases. This

research additionally has implications for appellate lawyers and those practicing law. For lawyers

arguing before the Court, this research could provide insight into which arguments to propose

when asking the Court to overturn precedent. For example, a lawyer might reasonably see more

success arguing for the application of Janus factors than general stare decisis principles. They

might use this research to look at the direction of the Court and which arguments are seen more

favorably. Thereby, my research allows more insight for lawyers seeking to tailor their arguments

surrounding stare decisis. My research has targeted implications because it is crucial that

appellate lawyers are able to recognize the Court’s preferred interpretation of rationale

application regarding a doctrine as important as stare decisis.

Apart from the limitations to the methodology discussed earlier, there were additional

limitations to interpreting the results. The analysis failed to produce results that could comment

on relationships between the cases studied and the overturned case itself. By reading the opinions

of both, additional data could have enhanced the conclusions made. With more time for

extensive cognitive mapping, further relationships could have been included. Furthermore,

because the sample size of cases was twenty, there was not enough data to formulate statistically

significant conclusions about a quantifiable change to the Court. This was a large limitation that

restricted my research to making qualitative conclusions only.

Accordingly, it would be beneficial for future researchers to potentially expand the

selection of cases to cover the Rehnquist and even the Burger Court. This larger data set would

allow for trend lines and statistical interpretation that would enrich the qualitative conclusions

made in this research study. Alternatively, this research could inspire future research in applying

my methodology of relational thematic content analysis to other doctrines of the Court, such as

the Miller test or Chevron test. It is reasonably plausible that thematic content analyses could

21



have the potential to reveal changes to key doctrines that have experienced great uncertainty on

the Court. This research similarly suggests future investigation of the origins of stare decisis

using my methodology.

While the law is often depicted blindfolded, it is nonetheless important to take a deep

look into the specific directions of its interpretation, especially in regard to stare decisis. In the

end, this research follows the hope of all Supreme Court researchers — that out of a web of

cases, a constellation of truth may be found.

22


