Stare Decisis

Imagine if every time parties took a matter to court the judges had to come up with a ruling on their own. For one, it would take much longer for a case to be resolved. But more importantly, the same issue might be decided in different ways depending on the county, courtroom, or judge. So, how does the court promote fairness and efficiency? Through the use of stare decisis!

In this article, we will talk about the definition and meaning of stare decisis. We will briefly explain the history of stare decisis and take a look at some well-known examples of the doctrine in the Supreme Court. Lastly, we will discuss the benefits and significance of stare decisis.

Definition of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis is a doctrine used by the courts to guarantee that they will adhere to precedents when making rulings. When a court relies on its own precedent to make a ruling it is considered horizontal stare decisis. For example, the Supreme Court often uses horizontal stare decisis. It is the highest court in the US and therefore it has no other court of higher authority to rely on for precedents.

When a court relies on the precedent of a higher court it is regarded as vertical stare decisis. This is the most commonly recognized use of stare decisis. In deciding a case, state courts will adhere to the precedents set by the state supreme court and lower federal courts will follow the precedent set by higher federal courts.

Meaning of Stare Decisis

Translated from Latin, stare decisis means to "stand by things decided." If a previous court has ruled on a case that is the same or similar to the facts of the current issue at hand, then the court will align its decision with the ruling of the previous court.

History of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis originated in 12th century England. After decades of civil war led to famine and corruption, King Henry II sought to improve the lives of his subjects. One of his groundbreaking innovations was the creation of a unified legal system known as common law. In this system, the decisions made by the King's judges were used by other judges to rule on similar cases. This judicial system was used to consolidate the authority of the monarch and quash centers of local power. Furthermore, the new courts were open to all people, rich or poor.

King Henry II of England (1133 -1189) is credited with establishing the common law system that promoted the use of stare decisis, David Cole, Wikimedia Commons.

Early settlers of America brought over the principles of common law and stare decisis from England. When the United States became independent of Britain, they adopted the doctrine of stare decisis as well as common law in their own legal system. The newly formed Supreme Court used this doctrine to record and collect their own court decisions that demonstrated the customs unique to the nation. Twenty years after the United States was established, a large majority of citations made in cases were precedents set by federal and state constitutions and statutes.¹

The Supreme Court is the source of most of the rulings used in the doctrine of stare decisis. It is rare that a precedent will be overturned but it is not impossible. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that stare decisis is not the only way to decide a case, it is simply a guiding principle. This is especially true if the previous court ruling was poorly reasoned.

Examples of Stare Decisis

Some of the most well-known examples of stare decisis come from the Supreme Court's handling of cases dealing with constitutional rights. Some famous cases we will dive into are Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Roe v. Wade (1973).

Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education

The Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine practiced in Louisiana. Through this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public facilities did not violate the Constitution so long as they were held to the same standards. For sixty years, the US upheld Plessy v. Ferguson as the precedent in constitutional cases regarding segregation.

In 1951, a group of thirteen parents filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of their children to order the school district to abolish its racial segregation policy in Brown v. Board of Education. State law at the time allowed school districts to have separate schools for whites and blacks but it wasn't a requirement.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, there was a unanimous decision that segregation and racial discrimination in schools were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court effectively reversed sixty years of stare decisis with this ruling. Since the Court's decision in 1953, Brown v. Board of Education has been the binding precedent against all things regarding racial discrimination and segregation.

Roe v. Wade

In 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that the constitution protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. This decision was the precedent used in the Court's stare decisis for almost fifty years, even when the Court was controlled by a conservative majority. Until 2022, Roe v. Wade was used to determine the outcome of abortion cases brought before the Court.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Doe), left, and her lawyer Gloria Allred, right, on the steps of the Supreme Court, Lorie Shaull, SS-BY-CC-2.0, Wikimedia Commons.

The Supreme Court's decision in the 2022 Dodds v. Jackson Women's Health Organization case overturned Roe v. Wade. In their ruling, the Supreme Court declared that the Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to an abortion. The right to abortion isn't embedded in the nation's history nor is it a component of ordered liberty.

Benefits of Stare Decisis

A benefit of stare decisis is the ability to ensure that there is conformity and certainty in legal rulings. Because judges implementing stare decisis adhere to legal precedents when making rulings, a majority of the time rulings are considered fair and consistent. Additionally, people know what ruling to expect when two cases have similar facts.

Applying precedents to rulings also makes the legal system more efficient. Judges are expected to follow rulings from previous cases. Therefore, they don't need to waste time coming to a decision.

Using stare decisis, judges are protected from attacks by the public over whether a decision was made based on political or personal bias. Stare decisis reinforces the idea that the courts are independent and neutral which allows the court to act impartially in the pursuit of justice.

Stare decisis allows judges to ensure fairness and uniformity in their rulings, noomtah, Flaticon.

Significance of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis is important because it promotes uniformity and certainty in the judicial system. Judges rule on case issues by comparing the facts of the case to documented rulings by previous courts. If a case has the same or similar facts to the case at hand, judges can apply the precedent of the previous court to the current matter. Doing so limits bias in a judge's ruling and that judges can make decisions in a timely manner.

Johnson et al., The Origin and Development of Stare Decisis at the U.S. Supreme Court, 2015.