Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.
Stare decisis
| Federalism |
|---|
|
| •Key terms • Court cases •Major arguments • State responses to federal mandates • Federalism by the numbers • Index of articles about federalism |
Stare decisis is a Latin term that means "to stand by that which is decided." The term is used to describe the legal principle that courts should apply precedents from previously decided cases in subsequent court decisions. Stare decisis can help maintain stability and continuity in the law and limit judges' abilities to decide cases based on their own legal interpretations.[1][2]
Horizontal and 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, the U.S. Supreme Court might examine its own past opinions in deciding a case.[3]
Vertical stare decisis refers to the application of precedent that a higher court established. For example, U.S. District Courts might refer to past Supreme Court decisions in deciding a case.[3]
In the United States, the U.S. Supreme Court is the highest authority with regard to stare decisis. State supreme courts set precedents and resolve conflicting interpretations of state laws.[1]
Overturning precedent
Supreme courts can overturn precedent. Justices making such decisions often argue that a previous doctrine was unworkable in the context of a case being decided, that significant social changes occurred since a precedent was established, or that the most recent precedent violated an earlier precedent (in which case the court might describe its decision as reaffirming the older interpretation of the law).[3]
An example of a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided to overturn precedent was Brown v. Board of Education (1954). In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the Supreme Court established a separate-but-equal doctrine for issues of racial segregation, which became the legal standard for such cases. In Brown, the Court reexamined the issue of segregation and ruled racial segregation to be unconstitutional, arguing "that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate, but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal."[1]
See also
Footnotes
