Stare decisis—Latin for "to stand by things decided"—is the foundation of predictable law. Courts follow their own prior rulings and decisions from higher courts in the same jurisdiction. Vertical stare decisis binds lower courts to higher court decisions; horizontal stare decisis means courts follow their own precedents.
The Supreme Court articulated the rationale in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises: precedent promotes "the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fostering reliance on judicial decisions, and contributing to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Without stare decisis, every case would be unpredictable and judges could reverse direction on a whim.
However, stare decisis isn't absolute. The Supreme Court can overturn precedent if previous decisions prove unworkable, legal reasoning has eroded, or facts have changed so dramatically that the old rule no longer serves its purpose. The Court overturned Chevron (2024) and Roe v. Wade (2022), showing stare decisis balances stability against correcting errors.
Stare decisis makes law predictable. Businesses plan investments based on stable rules. Citizens understand their rights. Without precedent, law would be chaotic and arbitrary.
People often think precedent is permanent. In practice, courts can overturn precedent—but they need special justification and rarely do so.
Stare decisis makes law predictable. Businesses plan investments based on stable rules. Citizens understand their rights. Without precedent, law would be chaotic and arbitrary.
People often think precedent is permanent. In practice, courts can overturn precedent—but they need special justification and rarely do so.