From typo to coinage, Scott Lemieux defines a "de farco overruling" of a precedent as "A case, such as Carhart II, in which the Court makes a farcically trivial or specious distinction in order to avoid formally overruling a precedent."
From typo to coinage, Scott Lemieux defines a "de farco overruling" of a precedent as "A case, such as Carhart II, in which the Court makes a farcically trivial or specious distinction in order to avoid formally overruling a precedent."
