What is the stare decisis in simple terms?
Asked by: Maya Hilpert | Last update: June 11, 2026Score: 4.1/5 (63 votes)
In simple terms, stare decisis is the legal principle that courts should "stand by things decided," meaning they must follow precedent (past rulings) when deciding similar cases, ensuring fairness, stability, and predictability in the law. It's like saying, "If we decided something similar this way before, we should do it again," especially when higher courts have already set a rule that lower courts must follow.
What is a stare decisis in simple terms?
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions. Stare decisis means “to stand by things decided” in Latin.
What is another word for stare decisis?
Another term for stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent, which means courts should follow past decisions (precedents) in similar cases to ensure legal consistency, uniformity, and predictability, with stare decisis being the Latin phrase for "to stand by things decided".
Is stare decisis good or bad?
The doctrine of stare decisis famously instructs judges to respect past decisions even if they believe these decisions are wrong. Many believe stare decisis serves venerable values and bemoan its apparent demise in various apex courts around the world.
What happens if stare decisis is ignored?
If stare decisis continues to be ignored and cases are decided on biased, partisan lines, then the rule of law in the United States is at risk. 1. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
Stare Decisis: What Is Stare Decisis? [No. 86]
Did the Supreme Court decide on Trump's immunity?
Yes, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (July 2024) that President Trump has some immunity from criminal prosecution for "official acts" taken while in office, establishing a framework where absolute immunity applies to core presidential functions (like commanding the Justice Dept. for election-related issues) and a presumption of immunity exists for other official acts, requiring prosecutors to overcome this presumption for non-core duties, while no immunity exists for purely private/unofficial conduct. The ruling sent the case back to a lower court to distinguish between official and unofficial acts, significantly complicating Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference case.
Can a president overturn a Supreme Court ruling?
No, the President cannot directly overturn a Supreme Court decision; only the Court itself, through a new ruling, or a Constitutional amendment can nullify a decision, though a President can use executive actions, appointments, or influence legislation to challenge or work around rulings over time, with the courts ultimately checking executive power. The President's role is to enforce laws, not interpret them, and they are bound by judicial rulings, even if they disagree.
Can stare decisis be overturned?
(precedent can be overruled if changes in society or in the law dictate that the values served by stare decisis yield in favor of a greater objective).
What are the two types of precedence?
The two main types of legal precedence are binding precedent, which lower courts must follow (e.g., a higher court's ruling), and persuasive precedent, which courts may consider but aren't required to follow (e.g., a court from another jurisdiction). Within these, you also find vertical (higher to lower courts) and horizontal (same-level courts) applications of stare decisis (the doctrine of precedent).
What is the most famous court case ever?
There isn't one single "most famous" case, but landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases like Marbury v. Madison (judicial review), Brown v. Board of Education (ending school segregation), Miranda v. Arizona (rights of the accused), and Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) are consistently ranked among the most influential, while high-profile public trials like the O.J. Simpson trial (media spectacle) and historical events like the Nuremberg Trials (international justice) are also incredibly famous.
Does the Supreme Court follow stare decisis?
As the Constitution Annotated notes, today, the Supreme Court follows stare decisis “unless there is a 'special justification' —or, at least, 'strong grounds' to overrule precedent.” Therefore, stare decisis does not absolutely require the Supreme Court to follow its prior decisions.
What are the benefits of stare decisis?
The stare decisis concept lessens the need for subsequent litigation and further saves the time and energy of the judiciary by preventing it from having to continually decide the same legal question or issue if it has already been decided in another case.
What does precedent mean in simple terms?
A precedent is a past event, action, or court ruling that serves as an example or guide for how to handle similar situations in the future, ensuring consistency and fairness, especially in law where judges use previous decisions to rule on new cases with similar facts. It establishes a standard, meaning similar cases should be treated similarly, making the law predictable.
What is the Black's law Dictionary definition of stare decisis?
Horizaontal stare decisis, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) (defining “horizontal stare decisis” as “the doctrine that a court . . . must adhere to its own prior decisions, unless it finds compelling reasons to overrule itself” ). SeeVertical stare decisis, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed.
Can the president remove Supreme Court Justices from office?
No, a President cannot remove a Supreme Court Justice; only Congress can remove a Justice through the impeachment process, requiring a House vote to impeach and a Senate conviction for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," as Justices hold office "during good Behaviour" (lifetime tenure unless removed).
What are the disadvantages of stare decisis?
If judges reached the same results every time they applied a set of legal rules to a particular set of facts, then stare decisis would not increase the level of certainty within the legal system. The problem is that courts face severe constraints in terms of resources, time and expertise.
Who can supersede the Supreme Court?
When Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court about an interpretation of the Constitution, the only direct way to override that interpretation is for two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose an amendment to the Constitution, which then must be ratified by three-quarters of the states.
Has any President ignored a Supreme Court ruling?
Yes, presidents have ignored or defied Supreme Court rulings, most famously Andrew Jackson with the Cherokee Nation (Trail of Tears) and Abraham Lincoln by suspending habeas corpus, but this is rare and often leads to constitutional crises, with recent instances involving defiance in deportation cases under the Trump administration. Other examples include governors defying rulings on segregation (Faubus, Barnett) and FDR's stance on military tribunals, highlighting ongoing tensions between executive power and judicial authority.
Who can remove the judge from the Supreme Court?
Only the U.S. Congress can remove Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges through the impeachment process: the House of Representatives impeaches (charges), and the Senate convicts and removes, requiring a two-thirds vote for conviction. Justices hold office for life during "good behavior," meaning removal only happens for serious misconduct like treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Who appointed more judges, Trump or Obama?
President Obama appointed more federal judges overall (around 320-330) compared to Trump (around 220-240) during their respective presidencies, but Trump appointed more to the influential Circuit Courts and notably appointed three Supreme Court justices in one term, compared to Obama's two, making Trump's impact on the courts arguably deeper despite fewer total numbers.
Who has absolute immunity in the US?
In the U.S., the President has absolute immunity for core, official acts (like pardons, vetoes) from criminal prosecution, as decided in Trump v. United States, but not for unofficial conduct; while prosecutors, judges, and legislators also have absolute immunity for their judicial, prosecutorial, and legislative functions, respectively, but not for administrative or unofficial acts. This immunity shields them from lawsuits or prosecution related to those specific protected duties, though it's not absolute for all actions.
Can a president pardon themselves?
O.L.C. Supp. 370, 370 (1974) (opining during the Nixon Administration that a President may not pardon himself based on the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case ).