Whether the Constitution requires remand when an appellate court overturns its own precedent

QUESTION PRESENTED The United States Constitution guarantees due process of law. This requires a full, fair hearing that "embraces not only the right to present evidence, but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party and to meet them." Morgan v. United States, 304 U.S. 1, 18 (1938). In order to know the common law claims of an opposing party, litigants rely upon the precedent of the controlling jurisdiction. Occasionally, courts will overturn their established case law on appeal. This is their prerogative. The ordinary disposition following such a change is remand, as "it is also familiar appellate procedure that where the correctness of the lower court's decision depends upon a determination of fact which only a jury could make but which has not been made, the appellate court cannot take the place of the jury.". SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 (1943) The question presented is: Whether, when an appellate court overturns its own controlling precedent, constitutional guarantees of due process require remand to the trial court for application of the newly-adopted rule of law.