Linda Greenhouse calls it a Do-over Season: the possibility that the Supreme Court might second-guess itself in Citizens United, and also in Grutter v. Bollinger. Everybody remembers Citizens United: money in politics. Not everybody remembers Grutter by name, but they may remember the Court nine years ago upheld a scheme of race-conscious admissions at the University of Michigan.
I suppose it's fair to entertain the prospect the Court might back down on both: the court has done so before. Linda offers the examples of Minersville School District v. Gobitis (flag salute) and Lawremce v/ Texas (gay rights). With clarity of vision, she points out that "repudiations of precedent are nearly always the result of a change in membership rather than a change in perception." But she might also have mentioned the legendary "switch in time [that] saved nine"--Justice Owen Roberts' about-face that softened the court's hard edge in against the New Deal and very likely helped to defang President Roosevelt's court-packing plan.
So it is hard to improve on Linda's analysis, but a pulp novelist would surely consider one more possibility: that the fix is in. Okay, we'll give you campaign finance if you give us race-based admissions. No, I don't believe it but I'm willing to entertain myself by entertaining the thought.