Its not codified but the standard is the Ohio Supreme Courts test.
1) The decision was wrongly decided at the time or changes in circumstances no longer justify continued adherence to the decision.
2) The decision defies practical workability
3) Abandoning the precedent would not create an undue hardship on those relying on it.
Good start. As you've highlighted some already, the Supreme Court has over time relied on a set of standards when overturning precedent. Those standards include:
1) the quality of the past decision's reasoning,
2) Workability Standard: Whether the standards are too difficult for lower courts or other stakeholders to follow or apply.
3 How consistency the ruling is with related decisions,
4) legal developments since the past decision (i.e. changed understanding of the relevant facts) , and
5) reliance on the decision throughout the legal system and society.
And at times the court has claimed the above aren't the only considerations, but we've seen one or more of the above consistently.
NB "wrongly decided" in point 1 is not a matter of opinion, there needs to be some sort of proof the facts were wrong for example Plessy v Ferguson relied on the principle of separate but equal for enforcing segregation so it was overturned because in Brown vs Board of Education Thurgood Marshall proved that separate but equal was bullshit.
In Brown's overturning of Plessy it wasn't that 'the facts were wrong' and Marshall proved "SBE to be bullshit." Rather it was an application the aforementioned above considerations.
Specifically 1, 2 and 4 above. I.e (1) the quality of the past reasoning was deemed poor because there had been a (4) changed understanding of the relevant facts. That changed understanding partly rested on the psychological effects of inferiority complex that separation by race created even under conditions where the provisions were deemed equal.
That consideration amongst others led the Justices to this new understanding after examining works of psychologists and behavioral health experts on the matter.
Secondly it also noted that the separate was often not equal ( This by the way touches on both 1 and 2. The workability of determining whats equal was going to be cumbersome.
Now how does this impact Roe?
Sotomayor pointed out this week that this meets none of those standards and the lawyers for Missisippi have shown no reason to overturn Roe or Casey except they dont like it.
In Roe, rhe viability standard is what's being directly challenged by Dobbs. Even if the lawyers bringing the challenge have now pulled a bait and switch in their argument to try to overturn Roe altogether.
Mississippi's law really challenges the viability standard in Roe by setting a no abortion after 15 weeks law. The viability standard has always been arbitrary and likely a gets overturned
That said, Sotomayor does have a point that in most cases where the court has overturned precedent, it had done so in cases where it originally sided with the State over matters of individual liberty. And that won't be the case here.
Personally, I think CJ Roberts has the right thinking... Strike down viability as the standard cutoff for where a State's interest might exist but uphold the Woman's Rights to abortion under Roe.
Hopefully he can convince Barrett to join him. As it seems Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are all ready to overturn the legal fiction of Privacy right to Abortion found in the substantive due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
