The Doctrine Known as Stare Decisis 

The doctrine known as stare decisis is using precedents from previous cases as a guideline to decide current cases in the judges’ jurisdiction.  It has helped shape the American legal system into what it is today by creating a format to use when judging cases by using cases from the past with similar scenarios.  This doctrine has been used to help create stability in the judicial process.  The courts are bound by it to keep them organized.  This means that courts are not always having to reevaluate past rulings.  This makes new court cases more predictable.  There is less room for error or bias.  These rulings are final and no longer open for examination or a new ruling.   These judgements cannot be overturned or overruled, unless it can be proven that the law was misunderstood.  In one case the Supreme Court had to decide if a precedent was unworkable for the state court, meaning that the “government action was too difficult for the lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply.”  The case was Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority.  The court had to decide if it was appropriate to apply the precedent to a case at a state level.  It was determined that Congress did not have the authority to act on state employees’ working conditions who were working in government functions.  

To help the courts in deciding if overturning a precedent is justified, they look at several factors to be sure how they are related to the case.  They consider some factors like workability, reliance, abandonment, and legitimacy.  I do not think that the doctrine of stare decisis can be overruled or overturned easily because the courts must be cautious not to overrule past decisions too often.  Such a practice could undermine the credibility of the precedents.  These precedents are very much needed as a guideline to continue by.  I think most businesses in the United States agree with stare decisis because it gives them the confidence that a decision is made based on sound reason and not bias.  It can potentially save the businesses time and expenses by knowing if an issue is worth going to court over, simply by knowing how past similar cases were ruled on.  Businesses might not spend the time or money if the potential outcome will likely not rule in their favor.  It might be more feasible to settle out of court.  On the other hand, it could serve to be quite rewarding by setting a precedent for future cases that could arise with similar differences.  If a business has a knowledgeable legal team that can show there is a good chance at a favorable outcome, the business will feel more confident in using time and money to go to court.  I also think that in some situations a business might not agree with stare decisis because times have changed.  Depending on what cases are used as a precedent, the precedent might be very much outdated, and a business might feel that the decision is not fair due to the differences in how businesses are run today versus how business was conducted in that past. 

“The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent.” EveryCRSReport.com, Congressional Research Service, 24 Sept. 2018, www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R45319.html. 

Walker, John SLS |Commentaries Nos. M. “The Role of Precedent in the United States: How Do Precedents Lose Their Binding Effect?” Stanford Law School China Guiding Cases Project, 29 Feb. 2016, cgc.law.stanford.edu/commentaries/15-john-walker/. 

Karole Spencer

I have done so much research and written many papers over the years that I thought it would be fun to share them. I have a Bachelor of Science in Accounting, and I am also a Certified Beekeeper from Penn State University.

See Full Bio