Cite as: 558 U. S. ____ (2010) 19 Opinion of STEVENS, J. factor undermining Austin). Why it diminishes the value of stare decisis is left unexplained. We have never thought fit to overrule a precedent because a litigant has taken any particular tack. Nor should we. Our decisions can often be defended on multiple grounds, and a litigant may have strategic or case-specific reasons for emphasizing only a subset of them. Members of the public, moreover, often rely on our bottom-line holdings far more than our precise legal arguments; surely this is true for the legisla­ tures that have been regulating corporate electioneering since Austin. The task of evaluating the continued viabil­ ity of precedents falls to this Court, not to the parties.19 Although the majority opinion spends several pages making these surprising arguments, it says almost noth­ ing about the standard considerations we have used to determine stare decisis value, such as the antiquity of the precedent, the workability of its legal rule, and the reli­ ance interests at stake. It is also conspicuously silent about McConnell, even though the McConnell Court’s decision to uphold BCRA §203 relied not only on the anti­ distortion logic of Austin but also on the statute’s histori­ cal pedigree, see, e.g., 540 U. S., at 115–132, 223–224, and the need to preserve the integrity of federal campaigns, see id., at 126–129, 205–208, and n. 88. We have recognized that “[s]tare decisis has special force when legislators or citizens ‘have acted in reliance on a previous decision, for in this instance overruling the deci­ —————— 19 Additionally, the majority cites some recent scholarship challenging the historical account of campaign finance law given in United States v. Automobile Workers, 352 U. S. 567 (1957). Ante, at 48. Austin did not so much as allude to this historical account, much less rely on it. Even if the scholarship cited by the majority is correct that certain campaign finance reforms were less deliberate or less benignly motivated than Automobile Workers suggested, the point remains that this body of law has played a significant and broadly accepted role in American political life for decades upon decades.