It's pretty clear that Biden is the winner at this point. Does this mean anything for the case before SCOTUS?
Yes it does Mr. Green.
A win for Biden boots the argument in favor of statutory
stare decisis.
When "correction can be had by legislation" the Court is less inclined to overturn a precedent which is another way of saying the Court is more inclined to apply statutory
stare decisis. As a Democrat, Biden is likely to sign ACA-changing legislation passed by his fellow Democrats who hold a majority in the House so his election increases the probability of "correction...by legislation."
When great difficulty, such as resort to a constitutional amendment attends overturning a baldly erroneous precedent, arguments for application of
stare decisis are much less persuasive than when the political branches can exercise their power to alter the precedent-setting legislation or enact new legislation instead as is the case regarding the latest challenge to the ACA the Court will hear this month.
Note that at its inception and long after the Supreme Court gave equal weight to the statutory aspect or constitutional aspect of a precedent. It wasn't until well into the 20th century that the Court gravitated to greater deference to statutory precedents.
In his dissent in
Burnet, Justice Brandeis explains that the Court's overturn of an erroneous precedent will hinge upon whether "correction can be had by legislation" or "correction through legislative action is practically impossible."
BURNET, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, v.CORONADO OIL & GAS CO. (1932)
Mr. Justice Brandeis (dissenting).
Stare decisis is not, like the rule of res judicata, universal inexorable command.
The rule of stare decisis, though one tending to consistency and uniformity of decision, is not inflexible. Whether it shall be followed or departed from is a question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is again called upon to consider a question once decided.
Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.
This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation.
But in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this court has often overruled its earlier decisions.
The court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function.