Sends conflicting signals---looks like Congress ignoring binding judicial authority.
David Schaub 20, Lecturer in Law and Senior Research Fellow at UC Berkeley School of Law; Citing Rebecca Kysar, Professor of Law at Fordham Law School, with a focus on tax legislative and budget processes, 7/19/2020, "Doctrinal Sunsets," Southern California Law Review, vol. 93, no. 3, pg. 431-506, christian
What still has not emerged is a comprehensive account of the validity and typology of sunsets as a tool of judicial doctrine. Kysar’s observation about “lasting legislation” applies just as well to judicial decisions. Judicial precedents are not “permanent,” they are merely “lasting”—they have binding effect unless and until they are overturned, and courts as much as legislatures always retain the freedom to overrule their own past decisions.29 In the judicial context, a sunset would declare that the binding authority and precedential value of a given legal holding does not last indefinitely, but instead shall expire at a given date. On that date, the legal rule might simply revert back to the status quo (as if the instigating decision had never been binding); future cases on the topic would become matters of first impression.30 Alternatively, a decision could announce a new legal rule that would come into force after the initial rule expires—the new rule becoming the binding precedent and authority going forward.31