Supreme Court Precedent Clarity

Summary

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council did not overrule Warth v. Seldin or Sierra Club v. Morton, as they address different legal principles. Warth and Sierra Club focus on standing in environmental law, emphasizing individual harm over public injury. The Supreme Court typically overrules prior cases explicitly, valuing stare decisis, as seen in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Full Conversation

But don't Warth and Sierra Club also address the ability of an environmental plaintiff to rely on public harm to justify equitable relief?
Warth v. Seldin and Sierra Club v. Morton primarily address the concept of standing in environmental law, focusing on the plaintiff's ability to show a direct injury rather than relying solely on public harm. These cases emphasize individual harm for equitable relief rather than generalized public injury. Is there a specific environmental issue you're dealing with in Texas?
Has the Supreme Court ever said that it doesn't overrule its prior cases implicilty. That is, if it is going to do away with stare decisis, it is express about it
The Supreme Court typically makes it clear when it is overruling prior cases, often citing the importance of stare decisis. While implicit overruling can occur, express overruling is more common. Are you dealing with a specific legal issue related to Supreme Court rulings in Texas?
Nah, its SCOTUS. Do you have a cite from a SCOTUS case where the court makes clear that it won't undo itself silently
Case Rating: *
The Supreme Court has acknowledged the importance of stare decisis in several cases, emphasizing that changes in precedent are usually made explicitly. One example is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where the Court discussed the importance of precedent and the conditions under which it might be overturned.