[Non-Sequitur]

Your post is not entirely correct. The Constitution says that the Supreme Court will have original jurisdiction in matters where a state is one of the parties involved. That is how the whole issue of secession got dragged into Texas v. White since the defendents claimed that since Texas had seceeded and reconstruction was on, then Texas was not a state and did not have the state's right of going to the Supreme Court. By ruling that the Texas act of secession was illegal and that Texas had never ceased to be a state, the court was confirming that Texas had the right to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

I'm not sure that I am following this 'contingent' decision stuff. Supreme Court decisions are retroactive. Statues that the court finds to be in violation of the Constitution are struck down, and any actions taken under those statutes can be voided. The only exception is if the court declares a decision to be prospective, in which case the court takes a 'go and sin no more' attitude. In Texas v. White it was not a prospective decision. The articles of secession were declared in violation of the constitution and Texas never ceased being a state. The decision was valid, no matter how much you may disagree with it.

[Aurelius]

"In Texas v. White it was not a prospective decision."

And what is your basis for that statement?

"I'm not sure that I am following this 'contingent' decision stuff."

By "contingent decision" I mean a decision like Texas v. White (or Roe v Wade) which was not logically necessitated by the Constitution and existing law but reflects the personal attitudes and philosophy of the Justices sitting at the time, as well as possibly other contingent effects (such as current public opinion), making it impossible to have been anticipated, even in principle.