[DoodleDawg]

Thomas didn't even discuss stare decisis at all in his concurrence.

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J.concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents have generated."

What is stare decisis but established precedent?

[Bruce Campbells Chin]

Stare decisis is part of the analysis when you're deciding whether or not to overturn a case you believe was wrongly decided. One element of a traditional stare decisis analysis is reliance interest, which the majority discussed on pp. 6-7. Thomas' concurrence didn't address that at all.