Abstract
Can a holding by the U.S. Supreme Court interpreting a provision of the U.S. Constitution—which holding the Court never reversed or qualified—ever be treated as a nullity by lower courts? Suppose the reasoning on which that holding stands has come to be recognized as so unsound, so contradicted by every interpretive theory one could deploy on its behalf, that the holding stands on thin air, with nothing to support it. Could such a holding properly be ignored by lower courts as having no force? Can a lower court act contrary to the holding, or must it continue to enforce the holding unless and until the Supreme Court explicitly repudiates it? This article explores that question through the vehicle of a case that squarely illustrates the issue.