united-states us-supreme-court precedent
Have Supreme Court cases with multiple subsequent reaffirming decisions been overturned?
<p>Suppose Supreme Court decision A is subsequently reaffirmed in decisions B and C. Have there ever been situations where the court later overturns A, despite B and C?</p>

<p>Yes, such as this limitation on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action" rel="nofollow noreferrer">free speech</a>.</p>

<p>Initially, the limitation was "Clear and Present Danger" test (Schenk v. United States, 1919) which held that speech inciting lawless action was not protected speech and thus could be crimilized speech (i.e. Schenk publishing anti-draft fliers during World War I, which advocated draft dodging which at the time was a crime under the Espionage act of 1917).</p>

<p>This was later over ruled to the "Bad Tendency" test which allowed for advocacy of criminal actions to be criminilized (Whitney v. United States, 1927.  Whitney was accused of helping establish the American Communist Labor Party (ACLP), which held as a party platform the violent overthrow of the U.S. Government in favor of one advocated by the ACLP.  This is standard to most Communist Parties at the time around the world.  The difference between Schenk and Whitney was that Schenk actively called for a criminal action, where as Schenk was speaking of a future action following other party successes).  </p>

<p>This was overturned again by Brandenberg v. Ohio (1969) which introduced the "Imminent Lawless Action" test.  This explicitly overturned Whitney in addition to other cases not mentioned such as Abrams v. United States (1915), Giltrow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951).  It does not overrule Schenk, but it did cast doubt upon the decision made.  In the case, KKK leader Brandenburg made a speech advocating for revenge against African Americans and Jews as well as expressing the belief that the United States government actively surpressed White Americans and needed to be opposed.  He was charged as advocating the violent overthrow of the government.  Imminent Lawless Action added the important componant that the violation must be advocacy of lawless action (revenge against racial minorities) must have a definite future date (like "tonight", "tomorrow", or specific time and date) and a vague future time will not count.  And must show intent to break the law (Brandenburg did not specifically intend to break the law... he wanted it changed so it would not be legal before he took action).  Additionaly, they found that the mere advocacy of resisting the government did not have any language componant that suggested violent resistance.</p>

<p>Brandenburg, as discussed, overturned the reaffirmed B and put Schenk on some shaky ground as parts of Shenk were still relevant (Schenk first introduced that Free Speech was not without restrictions, but some of the case law was not relevent anymore, as Whitney used it as a basis in that decision, as did to a limited extent Dennis, which didn't work well with Whitney for other reasons.</p>

<p>It should be pointed out that the Supreme Court does not typically take cases that wholly reaffirm past cases.  Typically, their rulings are to clarify situations in a previous case that are not stated by the current extant rulings.  For example, if the Supreme Court took a case that called Roe v. Wade into question, the case would more likely test whether Roe allows for a particular practice that isn't all that clear in Roe.  It may affirm that Roe is still law, but the new case is not consistent with Roe, which will place a restriction on Roe, but not, figuratively, (pardon the pun) throw the baby out with the bath water.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Suppose Supreme Court decision A is subsequently reaffirmed in
  decisions B and C. Have there ever been situations where the court
  later overturns A, despite B and C?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>One recent example is <em><a href="https://origin-www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Daimler_AG_v_Bauman_No_11965_2014_BL_9151_US_Jan_14_2014_Court_Op" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Daimler AG v. Bauman</a></em> (2014), which overruled <em>Pennoyer v. Neff</em>, 95 U.S. 714 (1878) and <em>International Shoe v. State of Washington</em>, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) and a long chain of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases regarding the standard for an assertion of general jurisdiction over a defendant by a state court in a civil case in a case with facts unrelated to the state.</p>

<p>Another recent example is <em>Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</em>, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), which overruled the case of <em>Conley v. Gibson</em>, 355 U.S. 41 (1957), which had been the law of the land regarding how specific complaints filed to commence lawsuits had to be in federal courts which had been repeatedly affirmed in for many decades by the U.S. Supreme Court in the meantime.</p>

<p>A third example, which is much less recent, is <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em>, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which overruled a long line of cases endorsing the separate but equal standard for equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment originally established in the case of <em>Plessy v. Ferguson</em>, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), which was then reaffirmed in numerous U.S. Supreme Court cases over five decades before it was overruled.</p>
