When was the last time the US Supreme Court overturned a previous decision?

Answer 1

Answer

Yes. An example would be Supreme Court decisions regarding the eighth amendment's prohibition of inflicting "cruel and unusual punishments". [The Supreme Court has overturned quite a few precedents set in earlier cases, not just on Eighth Amendment grounds.]

Answer

If your question is whether the US Supreme Court ever reverses its decision in a particular case the Court has already heard, the answer is yes, but only a few times in history.

In all cases, the losing party has 25 days to file a petition to the US Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. Most petitions for rehearing are denied, but if the Court grants the motion, the case will be docketed for reargument.

The most common reason for granting a rehearing appears to be instances where the lower court decision was affirmed by an equally divided court (tie vote) due to the absence of one of the nine Supreme Court justices. If the Court believes the issue raised is of sufficient importance, they will grant a rehearing, vacate their first, default, decision and reconsider the case with all justices present. Under most circumstances, the Court has reaffirmed the decision, allowing the case to set precedent.

On a few occasions, the Court resolved a previous tie vote by reversing the lower court.

• Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. US, 350 US 61 (1955) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed, case remanded on rehearing.
• Haliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 US 1 (1946) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.
• Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 US 118 (1941) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.

Cases have occasionally been reheard and their original decision reversed due to the Court's error.

• City of New York, 147 US 72 (1893) Decision reversed because the wrong rules for supervision of city inspectors had been applied.
• City of New Orleans v. Warner, 176 US 385 (1899) Court overlooked the fact that a bill for services had been present to the Respondent.
• Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927) Originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the lower court records demonstrating the case contained a preserved federal question had been overlooked.

A few cases have been reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to Federal Laws, or a convincing argument being made against the first decision.

• Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to the US District Court for the District of Colorado for disposition.
• Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 US 769 (1942) Originally affirmed a judgment sustaining an injunction, reversed on reconsideration.
• Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 US 549 (1892) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to lower court.

The Court has also reversed its decision to deny certiorari for various reasons, although these cases would be categorized differently because the justices' decision on the merits wasn't reargued.

• Forgett v. US, 390 US 203 (1968) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.
• Black v. US, 385 US 26 (1966) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.
• US v. Ohio Power Co., 353 US 98 (1957) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.

The Court also agreed to rehear two cases under original jurisdiction (disputes between the states) and modified (but did not reverse) their original judgment.

• Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 US 419 (1922) Revised determination about how much water Colorado could divert from the Colorado River.
• Arizona v. California, 530 US 392 (2000) Water apportionment from the Colorado River, case initiated in 1952 and thereafter modified in 1955, 1964, 1979, and 1984.

A search of the Justia Supreme Court database indicates the last time the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider a case under its appellate jurisdiction was 1969; the most recent case reconsidered under original jurisdiction was in 2000.

Answer 2

The US Supreme Court has the ability to change its own decisions, but this has only happened a few times throughout history.

In all cases, the losing party has 25 days to file a petition to the US Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. Most petitions for rehearing are denied, in part because at least one of the justices who voted with the majority must agree, and in part because the Court would need a compelling reason to revisit a case it had just decided. If the Court grants the petition, the case will be docketed for reargument.

The most common reason for granting a rehearing appears to be instances where the lower court decision was affirmed by an equally divided court (tie vote) due to the absence of one of the nine Supreme Court justices. If the Court believes the issue raised is of sufficient importance, they may grant a rehearing, vacate their first default decision, and reconsider the case with all justices present. Under most circumstances, the Court has reaffirmed the decision, allowing the case to set precedent.

On a few occasions, the Court resolved a previous tie vote by reversing the lower court.

• Indian Towing Co., Inc. v. US, 350 US 61 (1955) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed, case remanded on rehearing.
• Haliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 US 1 (1946) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.
• Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Co., 314 US 118 (1941) Originally affirmed by an equally divided court, vacated, lower court decision reversed on rehearing.

Cases have occasionally been reheard and their original decision reversed due to the Court's error.

• City of New York, 147 US 72 (1893) Decision reversed because the wrong rules for supervision of city inspectors had been applied.
• City of New Orleans v. Warner, 176 US 385 (1899) Decision reversed because the Court overlooked the fact that a bill for services had been presented to the Respondent.
• Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927) Originally dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the Court had been unable to find records documenting the case contained a preserved federal question.

A few cases have been reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to federal laws, or a convincing argument made against the first decision.

• Alderman v. US, 394 US 165 (1969) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to the US District Court for the District of Colorado for disposition.
• Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 US 769 (1942) Originally affirmed a judgment sustaining an injunction, reversed on reconsideration.
• Brenham v. German American Bank, 144 US 549 (1892) Previous decision vacated and case remanded to lower court.

The Court has also reversed its decision to deny certiorari for various reasons, although these cases would be categorized differently because there was only one set of arguments.

• Forgett v. US, 390 US 203 (1968) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.
• Black v. US, 385 US 26 (1966) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.
• US v. Ohio Power Co., 353 US 98 (1957) Certiorari initially denied, then granted on rehearing.

The Court also agreed to rehear two cases under original jurisdiction (disputes between the states) and modified (but did not reverse) their original judgment.

• Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 US 419 (1922) Revised determination about how much water Colorado could divert from the Colorado River.
• Arizona v. California, 530 US 392 (2000) Revised water apportionment from the Colorado River, case initiated in 1952 and thereafter modified in 1955, 1964, 1979, 1984 and 2000.

A search of the Justia Supreme Court database indicates the last time the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider a case under its appellate jurisdiction was 1969; the most recent case reconsidered under original jurisdiction was in 2000.

For more information, see Related Questions, below.

Answer 3

Well, they don't re-try the same case, but the Supreme Court changes in terms of who sits on it, and so yes, if a similar case comes up and the court agrees to hear it, it could change the way that the country interprets a certain law, even if the Supreme Court ruled on that idea in the past.

ANOTHER ANSWER:

Yes, the US Supreme Court can "change its mind" after rendering a decision within the same case.

The process is referred to as making a petition for rehearing and is governed by US Supreme Court Rule 44. Pertinent parts of the Rule are stated below, however the entire rule may be viewed by clicking on the Related Link.

Rule 44. Rehearing

1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or decision of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. . . . The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; . . . A petition for rehearing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.

2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial . . . but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; . . .

Thus, the Supreme Court may in rare cases "change its mind" and come to a different conclusion even within the exact same case.

Answer 4

Never