as long as they have a right-wing majority, i wouldn't expect them to reverse themselves.

if we get a majority on the court through the usual means (which requires we control the white house and the senate and enough time for vacancies on the court) or through expanding the court (which requires we control the white house, the senate, and the house) then it's plausible that some of these decisions might be reversed.

that said, even then, the court usually waits for an ideal case to come up, which can take years. republicans have gamed this to some extent by creating cases with an agenda of getting to the supreme court, and sometimes choosing the legal path to create the desired legal conflict for the supreme court to rule on. democrats don't play this game, so the process can take years.


once it gets to the supreme court, whether the earlier case had opinions delivered or not may help or hinder overturning it. on the one hand, the earlier majority didn't explain their reasoning, so it may be easier to ignore whatever thought process they had, which makes overturning easier. on the other hand, there are also no dissents, and dissents in earlier decisions often form the basis of a later court overturning.

so not having an opinion is a big of a mixed bag, but in any case the makeup of the court is a much bigger factor.

In a sense that few people pay attention to, the rationale is the ruling. A new court could easily rule in a different direction without even having to grapple with why they're ignoring prior precedent (because there isn't really a precedent set). So in one sense it's easy to overturn... but in another sense there's nothing to overturn.

But this doesn't apply to just anything on the "shadow docket"... because they often do include their reasoning. Those are every bit as valid as cases that had oral arguments and months of deliberation