Page:Groff v. DeJoy.pdf/28

2 See 29 CFR §1605.2(e) (2022) (citing Hardison, 432 U. S., at 80, 84).

Petitioner Gerald Groff asks this Court to overrule Hardison and to replace it with a “significant difficulty or expense” standard. Brief for Petitioner 17–38. The Court does not do so. That is a wise choice because stare decisis has “enhanced force” in statutory cases. Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 456 (2015). Congress is free to revise this Court’s statutory interpretations. The Court’s respect for Congress’s decision not to intervene promotes the separation of powers by requiring interested parties to resort to the legislative rather than the judicial process to achieve their policy goals. This justification for statutory stare decisis is especially strong here because “Congress has spurned multiple opportunities to reverse [Hardison]—openings as frequent and clear as this Court ever sees.” Id., at 456–457. Moreover, in the decades since Hardison was decided, Congress has revised Title VII multiple times in response to other decisions of this Court, yet never in response to Hardison. See Kimble, 576 U. S., at 457.