Stare Decisis: Inapplicable To Public Law's Ever-Changing Nature

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 things decided. The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent, while vertical stare decisis refers to a court applying precedent from a higher court. While stare decisis is a foundational concept in the American legal system, it does not apply to public law. This may be because public law is a rapidly evolving area of law that is heavily influenced by social and political change. As such, the rigid application of stare decisis could hinder the development of public law and prevent it from adapting to the changing needs and values of society.

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case

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. On the other hand, vertical stare decisis obligates lower courts to strictly adhere to rulings made by higher or appellate courts within the same jurisdiction, as they have persuasive authority. For instance, a federal district court must abide by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is the federal court of last resort with binding authority.

Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way, providing consistency and certainty in legal rulings. It also makes the legal system more efficient, as judges do not need to spend time deliberating on decisions that have already been made. Additionally, it protects judges from public attacks over whether a decision was based on political or personal bias, reinforcing the idea that the courts are independent and neutral.

However, stare decisis has been criticised for being rigid and not accounting for minor differences between cases. It can also hinder the legal system's ability to update laws according to modern societal views, as precedents set by earlier cases may not align with current perspectives.

It ensures that cases with similar facts are approached in the same way

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that ensures that cases with similar facts are approached in the same way. The term stare decisis is derived from Latin and means "to stand by things decided". It is a foundational concept in the American legal system, which dictates that courts adhere to previous judgments or rulings from higher courts or tribunals when resolving a case with similar facts. This promotes the consistent development of legal principles and contributes to the integrity of the judicial process.

The doctrine operates through horizontal and vertical stare decisis. 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 obligates lower courts to strictly adhere to rulings made by higher courts within the same jurisdiction. For instance, an appellate court must abide by decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court, as it is the federal court of last resort with binding authority.

Stare decisis ensures that similar cases are approached in the same way by requiring courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. This promotes uniformity and certainty in the judicial system, as judges rule on case issues by comparing the facts of the case to documented rulings by previous courts. If a case has similar facts to a previous case, judges can apply the precedent of the previous court to the current matter, limiting bias and ensuring timely decision-making.

The benefits of stare decisis include efficiency in the legal system, as judges do not need to start from scratch when deciding on a case. It also protects judges from public attacks over whether a decision was based on political or personal bias, reinforcing the independence and neutrality of the courts. However, stare decisis can also be rigid, and it can be challenging to overturn precedents, even when they are outdated or no longer align with modern societal views.

It operates both horizontally and vertically

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 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.

Vertical stare decisis, on the other hand, occurs when a court applies precedent from a higher court. For instance, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be an example of vertical stare decisis. Similarly, if the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York followed a previous ruling by the Second Circuit, this would also be an illustration of vertical stare decisis.

In summary, the distinction between horizontal and vertical stare decisis lies in whether a court adheres to its own precedent (horizontal) or adopts the precedent set by a higher court (vertical).

It is not an inexorable command and can be overruled in certain circumstances

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 things decided". While stare decisis is an important principle in the American legal system, it is not an absolute rule and can be overruled in certain circumstances.

The doctrine of stare decisis operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent, while vertical stare decisis refers to a court applying precedent from a higher court. For example, if the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals adheres to a previous ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, that would be vertical stare decisis.

Although courts seldom overrule precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has acknowledged that stare decisis is not an "inexorable command". This means that in certain circumstances, the Supreme Court may depart from stare decisis and overrule precedent. This typically occurs when prior decisions are "unworkable or are badly reasoned", particularly in constitutional cases.

For example, in the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly renounced the earlier decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, thereby refusing to apply stare decisis. In Brown, the Court held that segregation and racial discrimination in schools were unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine that had been upheld in Plessy. This demonstrates that stare decisis is not an absolute principle and can be overruled when it conflicts with the current interpretation of the law.

Another example of the Supreme Court departing from stare decisis is the recent case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade and held that abortion is not a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. This case illustrates that stare decisis is not a rigid doctrine and can be overruled when the Court deems it necessary to do so.

In conclusion, while stare decisis is an important principle in the American legal system, it is not an inexorable command. The Supreme Court has the power to overrule precedent when it deems that prior decisions are no longer valid or are inconsistent with the current interpretation of the law. This allows the legal system to adapt and evolve over time.

It promotes uniformity and certainty in the judicial system

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making rulings on similar cases. It is a Latin term meaning "to stand by things decided". The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent, while vertical stare decisis occurs when a court applies precedent from a higher court.

Stare decisis promotes uniformity and certainty in the judicial system by ensuring that similar cases are approached in the same way. It binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions, thereby guaranteeing conformity and consistency in legal rulings. This means that rulings are generally considered fair and consistent, and people know what ruling to expect when two cases have similar facts.

For example, in the Salman v. the United States case, Bassam Salman gained access to insider information through his brother-in-law, Maher Kara, an investment banker at Citigroup. Salman made an estimated $1.5 million from this information. The Supreme Court judge ruled that insiders do not need to receive anything in return for disclosing business secrets, contrary to Salman's attorney's argument that he should only be found guilty if he paid his brother-in-law. Based on stare decisis, the confidential information given to Salman was deemed a gift, as the previous Dirks v. SEC case established that a fiduciary obligation is broken when secret information is offered as a gift. Salman was consequently found guilty of insider trading.

Stare decisis also makes the legal system more efficient. Judges are expected to follow rulings from previous cases, saving time and energy by preventing the need to continually decide the same legal question or issue. It reinforces the idea that the courts are independent and neutral, allowing judges to act impartially in the pursuit of justice.

Frequently asked questions