A landmark Supreme Court case has long been overshadowed by its own precedent, with differing perspectives emerging decades later. Justice William Rehnquist once ranked Dames & Moore alongside Gibbons v. Ogden in legal significance, elevating its standing in constitutional interpretation. However, his former law clerk—who later became Chief Justice—held a contrasting view, casting doubt on the case’s enduring influence. The clash of opinions reveals deeper divisions over how foundational rulings shape judicial history.
In the South Texas Law Review, Rehnquist described his opinion in Dames & Moore as "similarly important" to Gibbons v. Ogden. His law clerk, and future Chief Justice, would disagree.
