skip navigation
search

MONTEJO v. LOUISIANA (No. 07-1529)
06–1807 (La.), 974 So. 2d 1238, vacated and remanded.
Syllabus

Opinion
[Scalia]
Concurrence
[Alito]
Dissent
[Stevens]
Dissent
[Breyer]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

556 U. S. ____ (2009)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JESSE JAY MONTEJO, PETITIONER v.LOUISIANA

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court oflouisiana


[May 26, 2009]

    Justice Breyer, dissenting.

    I join Justice Stevens’ dissent except for footnote 5. Although the principles of stare decisis are not inflexible, I believe they bind the Court here. I reached a similar conclusion in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2009) (slip op., at 1–2) (Breyer, J., dissenting), and in several other recent cases. See, e.g., Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 , ___–___ (2007) (slip op., at 17–19) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 551 U. S. 701 , ___–___ (2007) (slip op., at 65–66) (Breyer, J., dissenting); Federal Election Comm’n v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 , ___–___ (2007) (slip op., at 31–32) (Souter, J., dissenting); Bowles v. Russell, 551 U. S. 205, 219–220 (2007) (Souter, J., dissenting); Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U. S. 124, 190–191 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2008) (slip op. at 41–45) (Stevens, J., dissenting).