With the historical record and precedent against him, Hyatt defends Hallon the basis of stare decisis. But stare decisisis “‘not an inexorable command,’” Pearsonv. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 233 (2009), and we have held that it is “at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution because our interpretation can be altered only by constitutional amendment,” Agostiniv. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 235 (1997).
The Court’s precedents identify a number of factors to consider, four of which warrant mention here: the quality of the decision’s reasoning; its consistency with related decisions; legal developments since the decision; and reliance on the decision. See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U.S. ___, ___–___ (2018)(slip op., at 34–35); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 521 (1995).
The first three factors support our decision to overrule Hall.
We have already explained that Hall failed to account for the historical understanding of state sovereign immunity and that it failed to consider how the deprivation of traditional diplomatic tools reordered the States’ relationships with one another.
We have also demonstrated that Hall stands as an outlier in our sovereign-immunity jurisprudence, particularly when compared to more recent decisions.
As to the fourth factor, we acknowledge that some plaintiffs, such as Hyatt, have relied on Hall by suing sovereign States. Because of our decision to overrule Hall, Hyatt unfortunately will suffer the loss of two decades of litigation expenses and a final judgment against the Board for its egregious conduct.
But in virtually every case that overrules a controlling precedent, the party relying on that precedent will incur the loss of litigation expenses and a favorable decision below. Those case-specific costs are not among the reliance interests that would persuade us to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question. Nevada v. Hallis irreconcilable with our constitutional structure and with the historical evidence showing a widespread preratification understanding that States retained immunity from private suits, both in their own courts and in other courts. We therefore overrule that decision.
Because the Board is thus immune from Hyatt’s suit in Nevada’s courts, the judgment of the Nevada Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.
