Why Is Stare Decisis Important in the American Legal System

The doctrine of stare decisis in American jurisprudence has its roots in eighteenth-century English common law. In 1765, English jurist William Blackstone described the doctrine of English common law as a strong presumption that, in order to promote the stability of the law, judges would respect precedents where the same points recurred in litigation, unless those precedents were merely absurd or unjust.5Footnote1 William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 69-70 that it is not in the chest of a later judge to change or deviate from his private feelings). At least some of the framers of the Constitution advocated that judges respect judicial precedents because they limited judges` discretion in interpreting ambiguous provisions of the law. For example, in Federalist No. 78 During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton argued in an essay dealing with concerns about the judiciary that courts should apply precedents to prevent judges from having unlimited discretion in interpreting ambiguous legal texts.6FootnoteFederalist No. 78, p. 439 (Clinton Rossiter ed., 1999) (In order to avoid arbitrary discretion on the part of the courts, it is essential that [judges] be bound by strict rules and precedents designed to define and emphasize their duty in each individual case before them.) Historical sources give only limited insight into the founders` views on stare decisis, and it is not clear whether Hamilton was referring to the assumption that a court should abide by its own previous decisions, or rather those of higher courts. Thomas R. Lee, Stare Decisis in historical perspective: Von der Gründungszeit bis zum Rehnquist-Hof, 52 Vand. 647, 664 (1999). Other founders had similar views on the advantages of the previous ones. See, for example, 1 Diary and Autobiography of John Adams 167-68 (L.H. Butterfield, ed., 1961) (draft of November 5, 1760) (A very possible case, thus received in writing and settled in a precedent, leaves little or nothing to the arbitrary will or uninformed reason of the prince or judge).

See also Caleb Nelson, Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Eroneous Precedents, 87 Va. L. Rev. 1, 9 (2001) ([C]oncern on such discretion was a common theme throughout the pre-war period; in one form or another, he invented most of the pre-war explanations for the need for stare decisis.) But see James Madison`s letter to C.E. Haynes (February 25, 1831), reprinted in 9 The Writings of James Madison 443 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910) (Cases beyond the authority of jurisprudence must be allowed, but these are exceptions that must speak for themselves and be justified.) Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts respect precedents in their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stick to things decided” in Latin. Once you move in one direction, you will continue like this until something stops you. Similarly, stare decisis is the principle that moves the legal system in the same direction.

It`s always possible to set a precedent, but it can take a lot of effort to stop like a car moving at 60 miles per hour. It also means that Ohio`s lower courts within the same court system would cite this case as a precedent because it was decided by the Ohio Supreme Court, which has superior jurisdiction (vertical stare decisis). However, lower courts in other states are not required to abide by this precedent because they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court. In other words, the doctrine of stare decisis requires the Ohio Supreme Court to use Lavender v. Primrose as a precedent in subsequent decisions in cases involving a lender and a borrower where the borrower refuses to repay (horizontal stare decisis). Precedents are previous court decisions that serve as a reference point for deciding subsequent cases involving the same or similar legal issues or facts. Stare decisis can operate both horizontally and vertically, meaning that courts make decisions that are consistent with their own (horizontal) precedents or those of higher courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court (vertical). As the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court makes decisions that can have profound implications. Supreme Court decisions may influence the interpretation and enforcement of U.S. law for years to come.

Supreme Court decisions are considered binding precedents – in other words, they must be respected by all lower courts (such as local trial courts, appellate courts, district courts, state courts, etc.) – but can be overturned by the Supreme Court. On the other hand, stare decisis is a legal principle that obliges a court to follow established precedents when deciding cases involving similar facts and issues. For example, in Brown v. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation in schools is unconstitutional. This set a precedent that made any school segregation illegal in the country, even though state laws require segregation in schools. In this way, the principle of stare decisis can be just as powerful, if not more so, than law-making. Stare decisis has been criticized for a variety of reasons, as most critics believe that it often does more harm than good. Here are some of the notable disadvantages of stare decisis. Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning “to stick to things decided”. In law, the principle is regarded as a presumption that a court follows the precedent set by previous decisions of a tribunal that are binding on the same or similar points of law.

The doctrine may be discussed either in relation to a tribunal according to its own previous decisions, or according to the decisions of other tribunals that are binding on the court considering the question. In both cases, the application of the presumption means that the court is following the same rule as that which previously dealt with the issue. Stare decisis, Latin for sticking to things decided,1FootnoteThe full Latin expression is stare decisis et non quieta movere – hold on to the matter and do not disturb the peace. See James C. Rehnquist, Note, The Power That Shall Be Vested in a Precedent: Stare Decisis, The Constitution, and the Supreme Court, 66 B.U. L. Rev. 345, 347 (1986). is a legal doctrine according to which a court follows the principles, rules or standards of its previous decisions (or decisions of higher courts) when deciding a case with arguably similar facts.2FootnoteStare Decisis, Black`s Law Dictionary 1626 (10th edition 2014) (definition of stare decisis as a precedential doctrine that a court must follow previous judicial decisions when the same points recur in a dispute); Id. to 1366 (precedent defined as a decided case providing a basis for determining subsequent cases involving similar facts or issues).

This essay does not examine the Supreme Court`s dependence on state or foreign court precedents. Nor does it examine, as the Court held, whether a particular sentence of an opinion constitutes a binding obligation necessary for the purposes of stare decisis or, on the contrary, a non-binding obiter dictum. See generally Obiter dictum, Black`s Law Dictionary 1177 (9th ed. 2009) (obiter dictum definition as a judicial opinion issued when a judicial opinion is issued, but unnecessary for the decision on the merits and therefore not precedent (although it may be considered convincing)). The doctrine of stare decisis has horizontal and vertical aspects. A court that adheres to the principle of horizontal stare decisis will follow its own previous decisions, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., the Supreme Court follows a precedent unless it has become too difficult for the lower courts to apply it).3FootnoteHorizontal stare decisis, Black`s Law Dictionary 1537 (10th edition 2014) (Definition of horizontal stare decisis as doctrine, than a court. must comply with its own previous decisions, unless it finds compelling reasons to override). In contrast, vertical stare decisis requires lower courts to strictly follow the decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction (for example, a federal appellate court must follow U.S. decisions).

Supreme Court, Federal Supreme Court of Last Resort).4FootnoteSee id.