Court Decisions: Instant Lawmaking

In the legal context, a decision is a judicial determination of parties' rights and obligations made by a court based on facts and law. The text of a decision typically includes a summary of the facts, a discussion of relevant laws, the court's reasoning for how the law applies to the case, and the court's orders. The doctrine of stare decisis, which means let the decision stand or to stand by things decided in Latin, holds that courts and judges should honour precedent, meaning that the decisions, rulings, and opinions from prior cases are upheld. This gives the law consistency and makes interpretations of the law more predictable. When a court faces a legal argument, if a previous court has ruled on the same or a closely related issue, the court will make its decision in alignment with the previous court's decision.

Courts adhere to precedent in making decisions

Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. The term stare decisis is derived from Latin and means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided". It is a foundational concept in the American legal system.

Stare decisis 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 and less seemingly random.

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 adhered 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 Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York adhered to a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, that would be vertical stare decisis.

Vertical stare decisis—the idea that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts—is deeply entrenched in the American legal system. This idea is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme".

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command". When prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned", then the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, and this is "particularly true in constitutional cases". For example, in deciding Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

The previous court must have binding authority

The concept of stare decisis, derived from the Latin phrase "let the decision stand", is a cornerstone of the American legal system. It dictates that courts and judges should abide by "precedent", meaning the decisions, rulings, and opinions of previous cases. This principle ensures consistency in the law and makes its interpretation more predictable.

Vertical stare decisis, which holds that higher court decisions take precedence over lower court rulings, is deeply rooted in American law. This is what gives the Supreme Court its authority. In contrast, horizontal stare decisis asserts that rulings made by courts at the same appellate level should serve as precedents for one another. This form of stare decisis is generally considered less authoritative.

The decisions of appellate courts are often binding on lower courts. For instance, district courts are obligated to follow the rulings of the court of appeals that reviews their cases. Likewise, all courts, be they state or federal, are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. This is an example of the principle of binding precedent, which dictates that a prior court decision must be adhered to unless there are compelling reasons or significant differences in facts or issues.

Precedent plays a crucial role in case law, which involves using past court decisions to determine how other laws should be applied in a given situation. Trial courts, for instance, may refer to previous Supreme Court rulings when dealing with similar issues. This ensures that the law is applied consistently and predictably.

Precedent gives the law consistency

In the US legal system, the concept of stare decisis, derived from the Latin "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided", is foundational. 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. This is especially true in common law systems, where judges are obliged to make their rulings as consistent as possible with previous judicial decisions on the same subject. Each case decided by a common law court becomes a precedent, or guideline, for subsequent decisions involving similar disputes.

However, there are nuances and limits to stare decisis. For example, vertical stare decisis, which holds that the decisions of higher courts take precedence over the decisions of lower courts, is deeply entrenched in the American legal system. This is part of what makes the Supreme Court "supreme". On the other hand, horizontal stare decisis holds that prior decisions made by courts at the same appellate level should provide some precedent for cases heard by courts of the same level. This form of stare decisis is generally seen to be less controlling.

Additionally, there are situations where following precedent may lead to unjust outcomes. In these cases, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or even outright overturn prior rulings. For instance, the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) directly overturned the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1893), which held that "separate but equal" public accommodations did not violate the Constitution. Over time, the history of segregation in America proved that "separate" usually did not result in "equal", and the Supreme Court recognised this and decided that racially segregated schools did indeed violate the Constitution.

Furthermore, constitutional scholars propose the idea of "super precedents", which are legal opinions so fundamental to American justice that they are considered permanent decisions and are impervious to overruling.

Vertical stare decisis

The doctrine of stare decisis 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.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has explained that stare decisis is not an absolute rule. When prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned", the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, especially in constitutional cases. For example, in Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply the doctrine of stare decisis.

Horizontal stare decisis

The concept of stare decisis is foundational to the American legal system. It is a Latin term that means "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided". In other words, stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.

The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent or the precedent of another court at the same level. 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.

While courts will usually follow precedent, there are times when they may choose not to. For example, in the case of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command". When prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned", the Supreme Court may not follow precedent, especially in constitutional cases.

Additionally, there may be times when following precedent would lead to unjust outcomes. In these cases, judges may offer reasons or legal nuances to avoid following precedential decisions or to outright overturn prior rulings. For instance, in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court overturned the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson (1893), which held that "separate but equal" public accommodations did not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court recognized that, in practice, "separate" did not result in "equal", and decided that racially segregated schools violated the Constitution.

Frequently asked questions