"...adhering to stare decisis was especially appropriate in a case involving interpretation of the securities laws..."

The Volokh Conspiracy

Prof. Charles Korsmo on the Supreme Court’s Halliburton decision

"Instead, Chief Justice Roberts, in an opinion joined by five other Justices, took a more minimalist approach.  He held that Halliburton had showed no “special justification” for overturning the quarter-century-old holding of Basic, and that adhering to stare decisis was especially appropriate in a case involving interpretation of the securities laws, which Congress could presumably amend if they were so inclined.  Instead of wiping out the fraud on the market doctrine altogether, Roberts sought to chart a middle course, allowing defendants the opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance at the class certification stage by showing that the alleged misrepresentations had no impact on the market price.  In taking this course, the Court largely adopted the position advocated by the law professors Adam Pritchard and Todd Henderson in an amicus brief that was heavily discussed at oral argument."