Stare Decisis: Public Law's Friend Or Foe?

Stare decisis, a Latin term meaning to stand by things decided, is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making rulings on similar cases. It is a foundational concept in the American legal system, promoting consistency and predictability in the law. While stare decisis generally applies to courts across the United States, it is important to consider its applicability in the context of public law, which involves the relationship between the state and its citizens. Public law encompasses areas such as constitutional law, administrative law, and criminal law. The applicability of stare decisis in public law matters can vary depending on the specific area of law, the jurisdiction, and the nature of the case.

Horizontal stare decisis

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. The term stare decisis is derived from Latin and means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided".

The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis.

A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adhered to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be vertical stare decisis.

Although horizontal stare decisis is generally seen to be less controlling than vertical stare decisis, it is still an important aspect of the legal system. Horizontal stare decisis provides consistency and predictability in the law, as courts at the same appellate level follow similar rulings. It also allows for the development of specialised legal principles at each appellate level, as courts build upon their own prior decisions.

However, horizontal stare decisis is not an absolute rule. There may be exceptional circumstances where a court may depart from its own prior decisions, such as when the previous ruling is deemed "unworkable or badly reasoned". Additionally, as society evolves and circumstances change, interpretations of prior decisions may also change, leading courts to depart from horizontal stare decisis.

In conclusion, horizontal stare decisis plays a crucial role in maintaining consistency and predictability in the law. While it is generally followed, courts have the discretion to depart from it in certain circumstances, ensuring that the law remains adaptable to societal changes.

Vertical stare decisis

The concept of vertical stare decisis is deeply rooted in the American legal system and can be traced back to 18th-century English common law. The English jurist William Blackstone described the doctrine of English common law precedent as establishing a strong presumption that judges would follow prior precedents to promote stability in the law.

In practice, vertical stare decisis means that lower courts are bound to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court. This ensures consistency and predictability in the law and prevents arbitrary decision-making. However, it is important to note that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command", and in rare cases, the Supreme Court may overturn its own previous rulings, particularly if they are deemed "unworkable or badly reasoned".

Limits of stare decisis

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. It is a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided". The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically.

However, stare decisis has its limits. Firstly, stare decisis may result in the retention and spread of some cases that have been incorrectly decided. In such cases, the doctrine of stare decisis prioritises previous rulings over the interests of a wronged party. This is a significant limitation, as it can result in unjust outcomes for individuals.

Secondly, stare decisis is considered by some to be counter to democratic ideals. This is because the doctrine gives unelected judges the power to effectively create laws through their decisions, which may not reflect the will of the people or adapt to changing societal values.

Thirdly, stare decisis has the potential to impede the advancement of the law. As society evolves, the application of the law must also evolve to remain relevant and just. The doctrine of stare decisis, with its emphasis on precedent, may hinder this evolution by prioritising consistency over necessary change.

Finally, stare decisis may not always be applicable in constitutional cases. The US Supreme Court has stated that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command", particularly when dealing with constitutional matters. In such cases, the Supreme Court may choose to depart from stare decisis if prior decisions are deemed "unworkable or badly reasoned".

Overturning precedent

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. The term is derived from Latin and means "to stand by that which is decided".

In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest authority regarding stare decisis. While courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has, in rare cases, reversed its own previous rulings. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the Court renounced its previous ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

Justices may argue that a previous doctrine was unworkable in the context of a new case, that significant social changes have occurred since a precedent was established, or that the most recent precedent violated an older precedent.

The Supreme Court's overturning of its own precedents has sparked debates about the legitimacy of the Court and whether adherence to precedent is crucial to maintaining its legitimacy. Some legal scholars argue that the public cares deeply about certain precedents and that the Court should take public opinion into account when making decisions. Others argue that the public focuses more on whether the Court's decisions are value-based rather than on whether they adhere to previous precedents.

In conclusion, while stare decisis is a fundamental principle in the U.S. legal system, there are rare occasions where the Supreme Court may overturn its own precedents. This can occur when a previous doctrine is deemed unworkable, when significant social changes have taken place, or when a new precedent violates an older one. The decision to overturn a precedent can have far-reaching consequences and is often the subject of intense debate and scrutiny.

Public law and stare decisis

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 is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. In other words, stare decisis holds that courts and judges should honour "precedent" – the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases.

The doctrine of stare decisis has horizontal and vertical aspects. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to the ruling of a previous Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals case, that would be horizontal stare decisis. On the other hand, vertical stare decisis holds that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts. This means that lower courts must adhere strictly to rulings made by higher courts within the same jurisdiction. For example, a federal court of appeals must abide by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal court of last resort.

The doctrine of stare decisis is deeply entrenched in the American legal system and gives the law consistency and predictability. It lessens the need for subsequent litigation and saves the time and energy of the judiciary by preventing it from having to continually decide the same legal question or issue if it has already been decided in another case. Stare decisis also attempts to ensure that the public is directed by previously issued court decisions, through defined rules and principles, in its personal and professional interactions.

However, there are some nuances and limits to the application of stare decisis. Courts often hear cases where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes. In these cases, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to overturn prior rulings. While a strict application of stare decisis may lead to rigidity, too much flexibility may result in uncertainty as to the law.

Frequently asked questions