Stare decisis why is it important

Moreover, proponents argue that the predictability afforded by the doctrine helps clarify constitutional rights for the public. Other commentators point out that courts and society only realize these benefits when decisions are published and made available. Thus, some scholars assert that stare decisis is harder to justify in cases involving secret opinions.

The doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies precedent from a higher court. Consequently, stare decisis discourages litigating established precedents, and thus, reduces spending.

Despite the legal stability afforded by stare decisis , it is not without negative externalities. In addition, significant societal changes may also prompt the Court to overrule precedent ; however, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised cautiously. Stare decisis has as long a pedigree in the American legal tradition as any other principle you can think of. Stare decisis thus establishes a strong presumption favoring adherence to precedent in order to maintain respect for the rule of law and cabin judicial discretion.

Concluding that a prior decision may be wrong — even one that interprets the Constitution — is not enough to justify overruling it. Tellingly, in a substantial majority of cases over the past 50 years in which a constitutional precedent has been overturned, the court has been unanimous or nearly unanimous, with two or fewer justices in dissent.

That makes sense for two reasons. First, as the court put it in Vasquez v. All of this suggests that the justices should be open to overruling precedent only when the error in a prior opinion speaks for itself and is beyond serious dispute — and unanimity is a reflection of such circumstances.

For citizens to conform their conduct to the law in an efficient and predictable way — and for lawyers and other advisors to be able to give meaningful advice — the law must be relatively stable. Given the important purposes served by the stare decisis principle, it is no exaggeration to say, as the Supreme Court did just two terms ago in Kimble v.

The correction of a relatively recent error that does not implicate long-established practice will be less disruptive and therefore less problematic and costly. Abood is an old and very well-established precedent, and overruling it would significantly disrupt the legal ecosystem that has grown up around it.

For example, the principle on which Abood rests — that government has significant leeway in its dealings with citizen employees — also supports the rule of Pickering v. Board of Education , in which the court held that the interest of the government, in its role as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees justifies restrictions of employee speech that would not otherwise be permissible under the First Amendment.

Because the conceptual foundation underlying Pickering and Abood is essentially identical, overruling Abood would risk undermining the First Amendment standards that apply to government regulation of employee speech.

It is therefore possible that if the Supreme Court overrules Abood , many restrictions upheld under Pickering would become constitutionally suspect.

Second, and relatedly, the Supreme Court ordinarily evaluates whether the original case has generated strong reliance interests. As Justice Antonin Scalia put it in his concurrence in Walton v. As it stands, 23 states and the District of Columbia have enacted statutes in reliance on Abood. Board of Education , which overruled the separate-but-equal doctrine of Plessy v. But here, there are no apparent changes in the relevant facts, social norms or legal principles.

If anything, the responsibilities of government employees have expanded in recent decades, making it even more essential that the government have flexibility when acting as an employer.

To evaluate workability, the court often focuses on whether the prior rule is sufficiently principled for lower courts to apply it consistently. SEC and the Appeal Court had, therefore, not adhered to the principle of stare decisis. Supreme Court. Securities and Exchange Commission ," pages Accessed Sep.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Newman, No. Your Privacy Rights. To change or withdraw your consent choices for Investopedia. At any time, you can update your settings through the "EU Privacy" link at the bottom of any page. These choices will be signaled globally to our partners and will not affect browsing data. We and our partners process data to: Actively scan device characteristics for identification. I Accept Show Purposes. Your Money. Personal Finance. Your Practice. Popular Courses.

What Is Stare Decisis? Key Takeaways Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis requires that cases follow the precedents of other similar cases in similar jurisdictions. Article Sources. Investopedia requires writers to use primary sources to support their work. These include white papers, government data, original reporting, and interviews with industry experts.

We also reference original research from other reputable publishers where appropriate. You can learn more about the standards we follow in producing accurate, unbiased content in our editorial policy. Compare Accounts. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where listings appear.