What happens if a Supreme Court decision is obviously wrong?
<p><em>Edited to add this summary:</em> What happens if the Supreme Court issues a ruling that is obviously unconstitutional, such as interpreting a clause to mean something no reasonable person would believe it means, or ruling based on a nonexistent article?</p>
<hr />
<p>Suppose John Doe says &quot;Dogs are the best pets ever.&quot; He is (for some reason) prosecuted for this. He is convicted, and appeals the decision, and keeps being convicted and appealing the decisions until he reaches the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court rules that Article XVII Section 381 Clause 29 of the Constitution clearly states that cats are better than dogs, and Clause 30 says that anyone who says dogs are better must be imprisoned for at least 20 years, and Clause 31 says Clauses 30 and 31 override all other parts of the Constitution, including the First Amendment, and therefore John Doe is guilty and must go to prison. The President refuses to pardon him. What happens now?</p>

<p>The US Supreme Court has made some decisions that legal scholars, other judges, lawyers, and people in general have strongly criticized as mistaken, but none anywhere nearly as wild as the one suggested in the question. Many such, well let me call them &quot;disputed&quot;, rulings have been later overturned by the court itself. A well known example is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minersville_School_District_v._Gobitis" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Minersville School District v. Gobitis</em>, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)</a>, which was overruled a few years later by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette</em>, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)</a>. Many of the so-called <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Lochner</em> era</a> economic decisions were also eventually overturned by the Court itself.</p>
<p>Some disputed holdings have been altered by changes in the law, State or Federal. Some have been overturned via a constitutional amendment, such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barron_v._Baltimore" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Barron v. Baltimore</em>, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)</a>, which is now held to have been overruled by the Fourteenth Amendment, although the Court did not come to that conclusion until early in the 20th century.</p>
<p>Perhaps the most notorious case is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Dred Scott v. Sandford</em>, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857)</a> which held that a person of African descent could never become a US citizen, and that Congress was without power to prohibit slavery in any US state or territory. This is perhaps the most denounced decision of the US Supreme Court in its history (See the linked Wikipedia article for a few such comments.) This decision was undone <em>de facto</em> by the outcome of the US Civil War, and <em>de jure</em> by the adoption of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.</p>
<p>Some cases have later been treated as &quot;bad law&quot; even though not formally overturned. An example is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Korematsu v. United States</em>, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)</a>, in which the Supreme Court upheld the removal of US citizens of Japanese ancestry from the US Pacific coast during  WWII, and their confinement in what has been described as a series of concentration camps. This has not been formally overruled, but in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Hawaii" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Trump v. Hawaii</em>  No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)</a>, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The dissent's reference to <em>Korematsu</em>, however, affords this Court the opportunity to make express what is already obvious: Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution.' 323 U. S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting). [quoting Jackson's dissent in <em>Korematsu</em>]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And some cases, although much disputed, still stand as good law. The case of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_v._Kuhn" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Flood v. Kuhn</em>, 407 U.S. 258 (1972)</a>, holding that Baseball continued to be exempt from anti-trust laws, federal and state, has been much criticized, but remains in force to this day. (See the section &quot;Subsequent jurisprudence&quot; in the linked Wikipedia article) Congress has not, so far, acted to limit the exemption, as the opinion indicates that it had the power to do.</p>
<p>In short, a US Supreme Court decision, however &quot;erroneous&quot; or &quot;absurd&quot; commentators or the public may consider it, remains the law of the land until it is overturned or distinguished by the court, or made obsolete by changes in statute or in the Constitution itself.  It the highly unlikely situation described in the question, John Doe would remain in prison until his sentence expired or he received a pardon.</p>

<p>Your scenario is that the person has exhausted all avenues of appeal and the highest authorities in the land decide the person must be imprisoned.</p>
<p>Surely, in any jurisdiction, whether the case is mundane or bizarre, if the authorities decide a person should be in prison then the person will be imprisoned until the authorities decide otherwise (e.g. on appeal, pardon, probation, changed mind etc). Unless the person escapes or for some reason no-one physically acts to imprison the person or all prisons are blockaded (i.e. acts outside the law).</p>
<p>How could it be otherwise / what is the possible alternative?</p>

<h2>John serves 20 years</h2>
<p>That’s what the “supreme” in the Supreme Court means: if they say it, it’s the law.</p>

united-states us-constitution us-supreme-court