Court Rulings: Are They Law Or Not?

The American judicial system is based on precedent, meaning courts typically make rulings based on prior decisions. However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so courts sometimes have to overrule prior decisions when they determine there are strong grounds to do so. The rulings of the Supreme Court have significantly shaped American history and contemporary society, altering how laws are interpreted and even deeming them unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's role in the judicial process is to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes. The American legal system gives the courts the power of independent judgment, meaning the president and Congress cannot direct them to decide a case one way or another.

Supreme Court rulings can deem laws unconstitutional

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and its rulings can deem laws unconstitutional. This power of judicial review was established in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

The Supreme Court has the power to deem laws unconstitutional based on its interpretation of the Constitution. This power of judicial review means that the Supreme Court can strike down laws passed by Congress or state legislatures if it finds that they violate the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has deemed laws unconstitutional in a number of landmark cases, including:

• Marbury v. Madison (1803): The Supreme Court established its power of judicial review and struck down a provision of an Act of Congress as unconstitutional.
• Scott v. Sandford (1857): The Supreme Court held that the Missouri Compromise, which prohibited slavery in the Louisiana Territory, was unconstitutional.
• Bolling v. Sharpe (1954): The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in the schools of the District of Columbia violated the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954): The Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, stating that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."
• Roe v. Wade (1973): The Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing or restricting abortion violated the constitutional right to privacy.
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): The Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage was a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, striking down handgun bans in Washington, D.C.

Rulings can alter how laws are interpreted

The American judicial system is based on precedent, meaning courts will generally base their decisions on prior rulings. This principle is known as stare decisis, which translates to "to stand by things decided". The doctrine of stare decisis allows citizens to form realistic expectations about the legal system and their rights and duties. It allows citizens to structure their day-to-day activities with an understanding of society's rules and expectations, leading to self-governance and autonomy.

However, stare decisis is not always strictly followed. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so courts may have to overrule prior decisions if they are inconsistent with it. The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the judicial system, has the ultimate authority to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes. Its rulings can therefore alter how laws are interpreted or even deem them unconstitutional. For example, in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court's ruling established its duty to ensure laws comply with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court's decisions can have a significant impact on society. They can bestow or rescind rights, effectively altering the societal status quo. For instance, in Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that pregnant women had a substantive right to abortion, while in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, it overturned this ruling and held that the Constitution does not provide a right to abortion.

While stare decisis provides stability and consistency in the law, it also raises questions and debates among legal scholars. One such question is whether courts must always follow stare decisis, even if a prior decision incorrectly interpreted the Constitution. This debate highlights the complex nature of the American legal system and the role of court rulings in shaping how laws are interpreted and applied.

Judges' rulings are based on prior decisions

Judges' rulings are based on the principle of stare decisis, which means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided" in Latin. This principle holds that courts and judges should respect and adhere to "precedent", or the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases. This gives the law consistency and makes its interpretation more predictable.

Stare decisis operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own previous rulings or those of courts at the same appellate level. Vertical stare decisis, on the other hand, is the idea that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts. This is deeply entrenched in the American legal system and is part of what gives the Supreme Court its authority.

While stare decisis is a foundational concept in the American legal system, it is not an absolute rule. Courts and judges may depart from precedent if they believe that following it would lead to unjust outcomes or if the prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned". For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly overruled its previous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, which had upheld the constitutionality of "separate but equal" public accommodations. As society evolved and the negative consequences of segregation became clear, the Court recognised that the previous decision was flawed and needed to be overturned.

In conclusion, while judges' rulings are generally based on prior decisions, this is not always the case. Stare decisis provides consistency and predictability to the law, but it is also flexible enough to allow for change and the correction of past errors.

Rulings can bestow or rescind rights

The Supreme Court's role in the judicial process is to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes. As described in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court's ultimate duty is to ensure the laws comply with the Constitution. The American legal system gives the courts the power of independent judgment, meaning the president and Congress cannot direct them to decide a case one way or another. For example, although Congress makes the laws, it cannot control court decisions interpreting them.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over some disputes and appellate jurisdiction over all disputes involving federal law or the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court can hear most cases on appeal, it only hears about 100 cases yearly. The Court usually only reviews cases that involve significant legal or constitutional issues. After a litigant exhausts their legal options in state court or the federal appeals system, they may file a petition for certiorari. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari, it will review the case.

The Supreme Court justices do make law; it is the reasons for their decisions that matter. What democracy requires are justices who are non-partisan, independent, and fair. That may not be what we get. The future of reproductive liberty and civil rights dominate public debate, but also at stake are laws governing consumer protection, health policy, worker’s rights, income inequality, environmental protection, immigration, criminal justice, and perhaps the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.

Rulings can alter the societal status quo

Court rulings can have a profound impact on society, altering the status quo and shaping the course of history. This is particularly true of Supreme Court decisions, which serve as the final arbiter on legal and constitutional matters in the United States. The rulings made by the Supreme Court can either uphold or upend existing laws, interpretations, and societal norms.

The Supreme Court's role is to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes, ensuring that laws comply with the Constitution. This interpretive power is significant as it allows the Court to shape how laws are understood and enforced. For instance, in the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court established its duty to ensure laws align with the Constitution. This power to review and interpret laws gives the Court considerable influence over public policy and societal norms.

The impact of Supreme Court rulings extends beyond the legal realm. For example, in Roe v. Wade, the Court's recognition of a woman's right to abortion reshaped societal attitudes and medical practices surrounding reproductive health. Similarly, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court's ruling against racial segregation in schools had far-reaching implications for civil rights and social equality. These rulings challenged societal norms and compelled broader societal shifts toward recognising and protecting individual rights.

The influence of court rulings is not limited to Supreme Court decisions. Lower court rulings can also have significant societal impacts, particularly when they address novel or contentious issues. Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts, but they may also interpret and apply those precedents in new or evolving contexts. This interpretive role of lower courts can shape societal norms and practices, particularly when their rulings address emerging social issues or interpret higher court decisions.

Court rulings can act as a catalyst for social change, challenging existing norms and reshaping public policies. They can spark public debates, raise awareness, and influence societal attitudes. The legitimacy and impact of court rulings hinge on public acceptance and compliance. When court decisions are controversial or met with strong opposition, their effectiveness may be diminished, underscoring the delicate balance between judicial authority and public sentiment in shaping the societal status quo.

Frequently asked questions