Gavin Howe
The doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning let the decision stand or to stand by things decided, is a foundational concept in the American legal system. It holds that courts and judges should honour precedent, or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. While judges are expected to be bound by the law, they are only human and may exceed their authority or make mistakes. In cases where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to overturn prior rulings. This is particularly true in constitutional cases, where prior decisions are “unworkable or are badly reasoned”.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Judges bound by law | Yes |
| Judges exceed authority | Yes |
| Judges make mistakes | Yes |
| Appeal process | Court of Appeals |
| Appeal requirements | Attorney representation, strict rules, correct forms |
| Appealable decisions | Decisions of fact, rulings about the law |
| Overruling a judge | Abuse of discretion |
| Overruling precedent | Unworkable, badly reasoned, blatantly absurd, unjust |
| Stare decisis | Let the decision stand |
| Stare decisis impact | Legal stability, consistency, predictability, efficiency |
| Stare decisis interaction | Vertical, horizontal |
| Precedent | Binding, persuasive |
| Altering precedent | Distinguishing a prior case, overturning prior rulings |
| Factors discouraging ignoring precedent | Legal scholar criticism, promotion prospects, training, tradition |
| Rule changes | Legislative changes, constitutional amendments |
Explore related products
![Brainard's legal precedents in land and mining cases. Volume 7 (Mar./Aug.1889) 1889 [Leather Bound]](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/81nNKsF6dYL._AC_UY218_.jpg)
$18.75
What You'll Learn
Judges are expected to follow case law
The English jurist William Blackstone described the English common law precedent doctrine in 1765, establishing a presumption that judges would follow prior precedents when the same issues arose in litigation. This doctrine was later adopted in American jurisprudence in the 18th century. Stare decisis is particularly important in the context of vertical stare decisis, where higher court decisions take precedence over lower courts, and horizontal stare decisis, where decisions at the same appellate level provide precedent.
While judges are generally expected to follow case law, there are situations where they may deviate from it. For example, if a judge believes that following a precedent would lead to an unjust outcome, they may offer legal nuances or reasons to avoid following it or even overturn prior rulings. This is especially true when the nation develops and changes due to new technologies or demographic shifts, causing the interpretations of prior decisions to evolve. Additionally, in certain domestic relations cases, judges have wider discretion to consider the equities of a range of factors.
It is important to note that judges who frequently fail to follow precedents may face criticism from legal scholars and may be less likely to be recommended for promotion to appellate positions. However, the decision to alter or ignore precedent is complex and influenced by various factors, including the specific facts of the case, changes in legislation or constitutional amendments, and the potential for bias or arbitrary decision-making. Ultimately, while judges are expected to follow case law, there is flexibility and room for interpretation to ensure that justice is served and the law adapts to evolving societal needs.
Civil Servants' Free Speech: Law and Governance Views
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judges can be criticised for ignoring case law
Judges are supposed to be bound by the law and not issue rulings that go against it. However, they are only human, and judging is a difficult job. It can be challenging to keep track of the numerous statutes and case laws that govern a dozen fields at once and make a ruling on short notice while balancing competing interests.
While judges are expected to adhere to stare decisis, or the doctrine of precedent, they are not required to do so in all cases. Stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided," is a foundational concept in the American legal system. It holds that courts and judges should honour precedent or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. Respect for precedents gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable.
However, there are situations where judges may depart from stare decisis. For example, if a judge believes that following precedent would lead to an unjust outcome, they may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or overturn prior rulings. In some cases, judges may even explicitly state their disagreement with a rendered judgment but are still required to rule based on binding precedent. Additionally, lower court judges have more flexibility in interpreting and applying the law than higher court judges.
Judges who frequently fail to follow precedents may be criticised by legal scholars and their peers. They may also be less likely to be recommended for promotion to appellate positions. However, it is important to note that the decision to promote a judge is often controlled by politicians rather than other judges. Nonetheless, judges who consistently disregard case law may face backlash from the public and their peers and may be perceived as acting arbitrarily or biasedly.
While judges have some discretion in interpreting and applying the law, they are ultimately bound by the law and must provide justifications for their rulings. If a judge's ruling is believed to be incorrect or an abuse of discretion, it can be appealed to a higher court. The appellate court will then review the case and either adopt the new reasoning or reverse the decision based on precedent.
Laws Within Laws: State Sovereignty Examined
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judges can be influenced by other jurisdictions
Judges are expected to respect and comply with the law and act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. They are supposed to be bound by the law and not issue rulings that are contrary to it. However, judges are only human, and judging is a challenging job. They must keep track of numerous statutes and case laws that govern a variety of fields and issue rulings on the spot while balancing competing interests.
Judges are influenced by a variety of factors, including legally irrelevant circumstances and information. For example, Englich et al. (2006) discovered that irrelevant anchors influenced judges' sentencing decisions, even when they knew the anchor was random. Similarly, Guthrie et al. (2000) found that anchors can trigger intuitive judicial decision-making, leading to lower compensation awards. In addition, judges may be influenced by the prestige of their office, their personal characteristics, and the characteristics of the involved parties.
Judges are also influenced by the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires them to follow existing precedents to promote legal stability and consistency. This doctrine is based on the idea that judges should establish a strong presumption of following prior precedents when the same issues arise in litigation, unless such precedents are blatantly absurd or unjust. While courts seldom overrule precedent, the US Supreme Court has stated that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command," and prior decisions may be overruled if they are "unworkable or badly reasoned."
Judges can also be influenced by the decisions of higher courts, engaging in what is known as vertical stare decisis. For example, a federal district court adhering to a ruling by a circuit court or the US Supreme Court would be following vertical stare decisis. Additionally, judges in different jurisdictions may influence each other's decisions, as the doctrine of stare decisis promotes consistency and predictability in legal principles across jurisdictions.
While judges are expected to act impartially and avoid the appearance of impropriety, they are not immune to influence, whether from legally irrelevant factors, the decisions of higher courts, or the rulings of judges in other jurisdictions.
City Ordinances: Overriding State Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$18.49 $19.95
Judges can overturn prior rulings
Judges are expected to be bound by the law and not issue rulings that go against it. However, they are human and can make mistakes or exceed their authority. In such cases, their rulings can be overturned.
The doctrine of stare decisis requires judges to follow existing precedents, thus preventing bias and arbitrary decision-making. The principle of stare decisis is based on the idea that "like cases should be decided alike". It promotes uniformity, consistency, and predictability in the law, and it saves the time and energy of the judiciary by preventing the need for repeated litigation of the same legal question.
However, stare decisis is not an absolute rule, and judges can overturn prior rulings in certain situations. For example, a higher court can overturn the decision of a lower court if it finds that the lower court did not properly interpret or apply the law or a constitutional provision. This is known as vertical stare decisis.
Additionally, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn its own past decisions or precedents, although it rarely does so. From 1789 to 2020, the Supreme Court reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times out of 25,544 cases. The Supreme Court may overturn its own precedents if they are deemed unworkable or badly reasoned, particularly in constitutional cases. For example, in Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the Supreme Court explained that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command" and may be disregarded if prior decisions are unworkable or poorly reasoned. Similarly, in Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, the Supreme Court overturned a 96-year-old precedent because it proved to be unworkable and had been undermined by the court's subsequent decisions.
Judges can also overturn prior rulings in cases where they believe a previous doctrine was unworkable in the context of a new case, significant social changes have occurred since the previous ruling, or the most recent precedent is inconsistent with the current case law.
Inverse Square Law: Zero Answers Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Judges can make mistakes
Judges are expected to preside over trials, review case facts and evidence, and decide on rulings carefully and responsibly. However, they are only human, and judging is an incredibly challenging job. Judges have to keep track of numerous statutes and case laws that apply to a dozen fields and issue rulings on the spot while balancing competing interests. Therefore, it is understandable that judges can make mistakes.
Judicial errors can occur in any case, be it criminal, civil, or family law litigation. Judges can make mistakes about what the law allows, and they can exceed their authority. For example, in the United States, the doctrine of stare decisis requires judges to follow existing precedents to prevent arbitrary decision-making and promote legal stability. However, judges are not bound to follow prior case law if it is “unworkable or badly reasoned,” particularly in constitutional cases. While this provides judges with some flexibility, it also allows for potential mistakes or abuse of discretion.
When judges make mistakes, it can have far-reaching implications and adversely affect the rights of the parties involved. The law allows for appeals due to judicial error. If an appellate court finds a fatal mistake, it can overturn the initial ruling, nullify an order, or place the case under reconsideration. However, appeals can be costly and time-consuming, and it is essential to have a strong legal team to identify and challenge judicial errors effectively.
While judges may not openly acknowledge their mistakes, some have explored the idea of transparently correcting errors. In his essay, Judge Hurwitz provides examples of judges who have identified and corrected their mistakes, suggesting that doing so can have positive effects on future decision-making and enhance the integrity of the judicial process.
Disbarred Attorneys: Can They Still Practice Law?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Judges are supposed to be bound by the law and not issue rulings that go against it. However, they do sometimes exceed their authority or make mistakes. In cases where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following prior case law or even overturn past rulings.
If you believe a judge has ignored prior case law, you can submit an appeal to the Court of Appeals. You must be able to point to specific laws that support your position and explain why the judge's ruling was incorrect.
While there is no federal statute or regulation that requires judges to follow prior case law, they are generally expected to respect it. Judges are trained to respect precedent and find rules by examining past cases.
Following prior case law, also known as adhering to stare decisis, provides continuity and predictability to the legal system. It also lessens the need for subsequent litigation, saving time and energy for the judiciary.
