4.3 Precedent, stare decisis, and overturning decisions

The Supreme Court relies on precedent and stare decisis to guide its decisions, promoting consistency and stability in the legal system. These principles ensure that similar cases are treated alike, boosting public trust and providing clear direction for lower courts.

However, the Court may overturn precedents when faced with shifting social norms, technological advancements, or legal developments. This can lead to both positive outcomes, like correcting outdated rulings, and negative consequences, such as legal uncertainty and diminished public confidence.

Precedent and Stare Decisis

Precedent and stare decisis concepts

Top images from around the web for Precedent and stare decisis concepts

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Supreme Court – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Precedent and stare decisis concepts

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  The Supreme Court – American Government (2e) View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  U S Courts: Structure and Procedure | United States Government View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Chapter Three: Courts in the United States – CRIMJ 100 View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Precedent establishes legal principles through court decisions guiding future rulings in similar cases (Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade)
• Stare decisis doctrine requires courts to follow precedents promoting judicial consistency
  • Vertical stare decisis binds lower courts to higher court decisions (District Courts following Supreme Court rulings)
  • Horizontal stare decisis obligates courts to adhere to their own prior decisions (Supreme Court following its own precedents)
• Supreme Court decision-making relies on precedent and stare decisis to maintain legal stability, boost public trust, and provide clear guidance for lower courts

Factors for overturning decisions

• Shifting social norms and cultural values challenge existing precedents (segregation, same-sex marriage)
• Technological advancements and scientific discoveries present new legal questions (DNA evidence, digital privacy)
• Legal developments through subsequent court rulings or legislative changes undermine previous rationales
• Practical difficulties arise when applying precedents lead to unintended consequences or legal inconsistencies
• Court composition changes alter ideological balance influencing interpretations of constitutional provisions

Implications of overturning precedent

• Positive outcomes include correcting outdated rulings, adapting to societal changes, and achieving more just results
• Negative consequences involve legal uncertainty, diminished public confidence, and inconsistent law application across jurisdictions
• Lower courts face challenges interpreting and applying new standards set by overturned precedents
• Legislative and executive branches may respond with new laws or policies to address or counter Court decisions
• Increased litigation often follows as parties test the limits of newly established legal principles

Notable precedent reversals

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) rejected "separate but equal" doctrine overturning Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003) recognized privacy rights for same-sex couples overruling Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010) expanded corporate political speech protections partially overturning Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) eliminated constitutional right to abortion overturning Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
• West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937) shifted interpretation of economic regulations overturning Lochner v. New York (1905)