Last weekend, Adam Liptak had this article in the NYT:

The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include "truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning," said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

But has the Court, in recent years, actually "alter[ed] the law of the land"?  None of the recent examples Liptak gives us involve revision of the opinion of the Court.  They are all dissents or concurrences.  A concurrence may establish precedent only when there is no majority, and a dissent never does (IMHO).  The opinion of the Court that Liptak notes being revised is Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), and I'm pretty sure that case is no longer good law anyway.

I skimmed briefly through Lazarus's article and didn't see any opinions of the Court being revised in substantive ways since the 1980s.

Of course, there is no need for revisions of opinions to be quiet in any case.  The right way to do it is to issue an order making the change.  That's how the California Supreme Court does it.