Etymology & Origins: From Latin 'stare decisis et non quieta movere,' meaning 'to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed,' the doctrine requiring courts to follow established precedent.
In courtroom proceedings, stare decisis is invoked when attorneys argue that existing precedent controls the outcome of the case at hand. Counsel will cite binding decisions from appellate courts within their jurisdiction and argue that the current facts are sufficiently analogous to require the same legal conclusion. Opposing counsel may attempt to distinguish the cited precedent on its facts or argue that intervening developments in the law have undermined its reasoning. At the appellate level, parties may ask the court to overrule prior precedent, which requires demonstrating that the earlier decision was poorly reasoned, has become unworkable, or that reliance interests have diminished.
Attorney: "Your Honor, under the doctrine of stare decisis, this Court is bound by the Fourth Circuit's holding in Henderson v. State, which established that warrantless thermal imaging of a private residence constitutes a search. The facts here are indistinguishable."
Judge: "Counsel, I'm aware of the precedent you've cited, but can you distinguish it from the present case? The factual circumstances here appear materially different from those in the cited authority."
Attorney: "We respectfully urge this Court to reconsider its prior holding in Martinez v. County. That decision has proven unworkable in practice, has been criticized by sister circuits, and the reliance interests it generated are minimal. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command."
Students often assume stare decisis means precedent can never be overturned. In reality, courts — particularly the Supreme Court — can and do overrule prior decisions when strong justifications exist. The doctrine creates a presumption in favor of following precedent, not an absolute prohibition against change.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
Provided the most extensive modern discussion of when stare decisis justifies adhering to precedent, articulating factors including workability, reliance interests, doctrinal development, and changed facts.
Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991)
Overruled Booth v. Maryland and acknowledged that stare decisis is not an inexorable command, particularly in constitutional cases where correction through legislation is practically impossible.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010)
Overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, demonstrating the Court's willingness to depart from precedent when prior decisions are deemed incorrectly decided on First Amendment grounds.
| Stare Decisis | Res Judicata |
|---|---|
| Applies the legal principle from a prior case to future cases | Bars re-litigation of the same claim between the same parties |
| Binds courts generally on questions of law | Binds only the parties to the original judgment |
| Can be overruled by a higher court or the same court | Cannot be overruled — it is a final judgment between the parties |
| Promotes consistency and predictability in the law | Promotes finality and prevents harassment through repeated lawsuits |
| Applies across different cases and different parties | Applies only to the same cause of action and same parties (or privies) |
What is stare decisis?
Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that courts should follow precedent — prior decisions on the same legal issue — to ensure consistency, predictability, and stability in the law. The Latin phrase means "to stand by things decided." It operates both vertically (lower courts must follow higher court precedents) and horizontally (courts generally follow their own prior decisions).
Can the Supreme Court overrule its own precedent?
Yes, the Supreme Court can and does overrule its own precedent, though it exercises this power sparingly. The Court considers factors including whether the precedent is unworkable, whether reliance interests would be disrupted, whether the doctrinal foundation has eroded, and whether facts have changed. Notable overrulings include Brown v. Board of Education overruling Plessy v. Ferguson.
What is the difference between binding and persuasive precedent?
Binding precedent (mandatory authority) comes from a higher court in the same jurisdiction and must be followed. Persuasive precedent comes from courts in other jurisdictions, lower courts, or dissenting opinions and may influence but does not bind the deciding court. A district court in the Second Circuit is bound by Second Circuit precedent but may only be persuaded by Ninth Circuit rulings.
A motion for directed verdict (called "judgment as a matter of law" in federal civil practice under ...
Summary judgment is a procedural device allowing a court to resolve a case or specific claims withou...
Closing argument (or summation) is each party's final presentation to the jury, delivered after all ...
Jury instructions (also called jury charges) are the legal directions given by the judge to the jury...
Apply your knowledge of this term in a realistic courtroom simulation
Start a Mock Trial