Justin Driver, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said the omission was telling.
“Omitting Casey from an opinion discussing the importance of precedent would be a little like omitting ‘The Godfather’ from a discussion of important movies,” he said. “You wouldn’t do it unless you were trying to make a point.”
In a second June decision overruling a precedent, this one on whether internet retailers must collect sales taxes, there was also no mention of Casey.
“These repeated refusals to cite Casey in recent opinions overturning precedents,” Professor Driver said, “strongly suggest that some justices view the decision as tainted and illegitimate.”
Read more at The New York Times