[tacticalogic]

Not going to happen (case being overturned). However, a good set of lawyers could “distinguish” the case out of existence...

I'm not familiar with the process of eradication by distiction. How does that work?

[Oceander]

I'm not familiar with the process of eradication by distiction. How does that work?

Quite simple: a decided case is only binding precedent on a subsequent case to the extent that the facts in the two cases are analogous - a case concerning oranges only binds subsequent cases regarding oranges, not cases regarding apples - so one simply finds factual differences that one can relate to the holding of the prior case - it is the holding only that is binding, not the dicta, no matter how colorful - and if successful, the prior case is "distinguished" from the case at hand and is, therefore, not binding precedent.

[piytar]

Simple. The Court spouts a lot of “stare decisis” (precedent is important) dicta, says they are not overruling the previous case(s), explain why the current case is different, and then rules opposite of precedent. Lather, rinse, repeat, until the “exceptions” cover almost everything but the specific facts of the precedential case (which still has not been “overruled”).

Voila, nothing “overruled,” but the law as espoused by the Court has changed 180 degress.

Happens all the time to varying degrees.