In this first clip, Justice Breyer asks Michael Carvin, the lawyer for Rebecca Friedrichs and the other anti-union plaintiffs, to justify why the Court should overrule the compromise that the Court worked out 40 years ago in Abood. As Justice Breyer explains, the Court has a strong interest in providing stability in the law, and overruling Abood would likely mean having to overturn a whole laundry list of cases. In the end, Carvin raises the specter of Citizens United as an example of the Court overruling precedent, essentially encouraging the Court to once again rule in favor of corporate interests in the name of First Amendment rights.