Precedent

Precedent Courts following Anglo‐American legal traditions generally adhere to the principle of stare decisis (“let the decision stand”). This doctrine holds that judges should look to past decisions for guidance and answer questions of law consistent with precedent. Consequently, when a court decides an issue, the ruling sets precedent for future cases presenting identical or similar questions.

Following precedent gives consistency and predictability to the law. For example, when the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) that racially segregated public schools were in violation of the Constitution, the nation could reasonably expect that subsequent cases presenting issues of racial segregation would be decided consistent with the Brown precedent. Decisions by the Supreme Court are not only binding on the future decisions of the justices themselves, but also on every inferior court in the land. This imposes a degree of national uniformity. By adhering to precedent, therefore, the courts allow the people to order their personal, business, and civic affairs with confidence in the stability of the law.

The doctrine of stare decisis is not inviolable. Judicial decisions are often based on historical conditions that may change as the nation develops and occasionally it becomes clear that a legal interpretation of the past was made in error. Consequently, the system recognizes that new precedents may need to replace old. The Brown decision itself replaced the “separate but equal” precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Following precedent, therefore, promotes stability in the law without precluding opportunities for reasonable legal change.

Thomas G. Walker