Stare decisis
Stare decisis is a foundational legal principle that promotes stability and predictability in the judicial system by adhering to past decisions made in similar cases. The term, derived from Latin meaning "to stand by things that have been settled," emphasizes the importance of precedent in guiding court decisions. When a lower court faces a legal question previously addressed in earlier rulings, it is generally bound to follow those established precedents, ensuring consistency in application of the law. However, appellate courts have more flexibility; they can depart from precedent if they identify conflicts between legal principles or seek to address ongoing injustices.
While stare decisis promotes continuity, it is not an absolute rule. Courts may overrule previous decisions, acknowledging that past judgments can be flawed or outdated. Such changes must be approached with caution, as they can disrupt societal norms and imply that prior judges were incorrect in their reasoning. Additionally, the principle of res judicata connects to stare decisis by preventing re-litigation of settled matters. Overall, stare decisis serves as a critical mechanism in maintaining the rule of law while allowing for the evolution of legal interpretations as societal values change.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Stare decisis
SIGNIFICANCE: This principle gives continuity and predictability to the entire body of common-law decisions.
Stare decisis comes from a Latin term meaning “to stand by things that have been settled.” Under this principle of law, judicial decisions that have been made in cases similar to the one under consideration are accepted as authoritative. Stare decisis involves, in addition to how judges in the past decided similar cases, what the basic judicial principles followed were. (It is accepted that specific circumstances will vary.) Often more than one case will be cited to illustrate the stability and continuity of the principles judged to apply in the current case. The principle applies only to the actual decision and not to the arguments substantiating that decision. Thus, a later case could be decided similarly to an earlier one but for different reasons.
Many arguments on questions of the law have already been settled in earlier cases. When the same point is again in controversy in a trial court, the earlier precedent is judged to be binding on the later court decision. This principle provides a degree of certitude as to what the law actually says about similar issues. It gives a consistency to court decisions that might not be possible if earlier decisions were not consulted. Appellate courts similarly follow the principle of stare decisis, but they are not under the same obligation as is a trial court. If two principles of the law come into conflict, or if the court seeks to remedy a continued and obvious injustice, appellate courts can deviate from judicial precedent and break new ground.
Precedents can be overruled and, in fact, have been many times. Courts often look at the presumed results of a decision. Occasionally such a prediction will prompt the judge to alter a decision. The judicial philosophy of a particular judge or justice can also influence a court decision. Judicial activists are more likely to overturn a precedent than are judges who believe it is their duty to defer to legislative intent. In the absence of clear legislation, that philosophy tends to follow decisions of earlier courts.
In Helvering v. Hallock (1940), Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter called stare decisis “a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula,” especially when adhering to the principle would involve “collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience.” It is not unusual for the US Supreme Court to overrule its own decisions. The New Deal era Court, for example, did that several times. The most celebrated Court reversal was Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, which overruled the “separate-but-equal” segregation doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
Overruling judicial precedent is a serious responsibility because it not only changes what has been accepted as law but also implies that the judge or judges making the earlier rules were either mistaken or philosophically wrong. A court must show respect for the knowledge and intelligence of previous judges. Even when an earlier decision can be shown to be legally or constitutionally flawed, stability is a consideration. If changing a decision would disrupt society excessively or create political chaos, judges are reluctant to break with the continuity of precedent.
Closely related to stare decisis is the principle of res judicata (“a matter settled by judgment”). This means that once a matter is judicially settled by the courts, continued suits on the same matter will not be permitted. Once decided, a decision is laid to rest.
Bibliography
Garner, Bryan A., ed. Black’s Law Dictionary. 8th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson/West, 2004.
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. The Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown, 1909.
Pekelis, Alexander H. Law and Social Action. New York: Da Capo Press, 1970.
Schwartz, Bernard. The Law in America: A History. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.
Solanki, Sneha. "What Is Stare Decisis in Simple Terms?" Thomson Reuters, 30 Jan. 2023, legal.thomsonreuters.com/blog/the-doctrine-of-stare-decisis/. Accessed 10 July 2024.
"Understanding Stare Decisis." American Bar Association (ABA), 16 Dec. 2022, www.americanbar.org/groups/public‗education/publications/preview‗home/understand-stare-decisis/. Accessed 10 July 2024.