Stare Decisis, a Latin term meaning “let it stand,” is a key element of how American law is interpreted, applied, and adjudicated. When applied, it leads courts to stand by decided cases, to uphold precedents, and/or to maintain former adjudications. How exactly that principle should be applied, however, is a topic of some debate. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Supreme Court held that a proper application of stare decisis required an assessment of the strength of the grounds on which the prior precedent was based. That articulation has led some to question: what are the implications of applying that conception of stare decisis to the Court’s constitutional criminal jurisprudence under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments? What might be its effect on those rights and remedies? Featuring: Hon. John F. Bash, III, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Mr. Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Southern District of Florida Prof. Meghan J. Ryan, Co-Director, Tsai Center for Law, Science and Innovation, Altshuler Distinguished Teaching Professor, and Professor of Law, Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Prof. John Stinneford, Edward Rood Eminent Scholar Chair, Professor of Law, & Senior Fellow, Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education, Levin College of Law, University of Florida Moderator: Hon. Amul Thapar, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit Overflow: Chinese Room