Amy Coney Barrett, Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement, 91 Tex. L.R. 1711 (2013).
Barrett writes that the principle of stare decisis should be considered a weak presumption in favor of retaining precedent in constitutional cases. She argues against a strong role for stare decisis in constitutional cases. "It forces the Court to proceed cautiously and thoughtfully before reversing course, but it does not force the Court to retain precedent." Specifically with regard to Roe v. Wade, she sates, "If anything, the public response to controversial cases like Roe reflects public rejection of the proposition that stare decisis can declare a permanent Victoria a divisive constitutional struggle rather than desire that precedent remain forever unchanging."
Stare decisis is the principle that a court must follow precedent. Vertical stare decisis requires lower courts to follow the precedents set by higher courts, and horizontal stare decisis requires a court, like the U.S. Supreme Court, to follow its own precedent. This article is primarily focused on horizontal stare decisis, and argues that it is weak, amorphous, and fluctuating principle.