The Effect of Supreme Court Rulings and Stare Decisis
By Samuel Strom, J.D. | Legally reviewed by Edward Maggio, Esq. | Last reviewed August 07, 2024
This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw’s team of legal writers and attorneys and in accordance with our editorial standards.
The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area.
The American judicial system is based on precedent, meaning courts typically base their decisions on prior decisions. However, given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, sometimes courts have to overrule prior decisions when they determine there are strong grounds to do so.
The rulings of the Supreme Court have significantly shaped American history and contemporary society. Decisions made by the Supreme Court can alter how laws are interpreted or even deem them unconstitutional. These decisions can either bestow rights or rescind them, effectively altering the societal status quo.
The legal doctrine of stare decisis is the guiding doctrine in American jurisprudence. Stare decisis translates to "to stand by things decided." In other words, courts rely on prior court decisions when deciding a legal dispute.
However, stare decisis raises several questions that legal scholars continue to debate. If the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, must courts follow stare decisis even if the prior decision incorrectly interpreted the Constitution? In other words, should courts always defer to stare decisis, or does the Constitution take priority?
This article examines the Supreme Court and the doctrine of stare decisis, detailing their significance in the U.S. legal framework. It starts with an overview of the Supreme Court's foundation and its function within the judiciary. Next, the article delves into the concept of stare decisis and its importance in upholding the consistency of the judicial system. It concludes by reviewing various pivotal Supreme Court decisions that exemplify the application of stare decisis.
The U.S. Supreme Court
Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch, comprising the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts. Specifically, it established the Supreme Court and allowed Congress to establish lower courts as necessary.
Article III vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the judicial system, making it the ultimate court of last resort. Supreme Court decisions represent the final say regarding the interpretation of the law.
The Supreme Court's role in the judicial process is to interpret and apply the law in legal disputes. As described in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court's ultimate duty is to ensure the laws comply with the Constitution.
The judges who sit on the Supreme Court bench are called justices. In 1869, Congress set the number of justices to nine — eight associate justices and one chief justice. The president nominates justices, and the Senate must confirm the nominee. All federal judges must take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution before they assume their offices.
The American legal system gives the courts the power of independent judgment, meaning the president and Congress cannot direct them to decide a case one way or another. For example, although Congress makes the laws, it cannot control court decisions interpreting them.
The Supreme Court’s Authority to Hear Cases
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over some disputes and appellate jurisdiction over all disputes involving federal law or the Constitution. Although the Supreme Court can hear most cases on appeal, it only hears about 100 cases yearly. The Court usually only reviews cases that involve significant legal or constitutional issues.
After a litigant exhausts their legal options in state court or federal appeals system, they may file a petition for certiorari. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari, it will review the case.
Given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it is logical that the Supreme Court be the final arbiter of constitutional issues. The subsequent sections will detail the methods by which the Supreme Court interprets laws and the Constitution and the impact of its rulings on the nation.
Understanding Stare Decisis
The doctrine of stare decisis means that courts follow prior decisions' rules, principles, and standards. It dates back to at least the mid-18th century in England. In 1765, William Blackstone wrote about English common law precedent and its importance in promoting stability in the law and legal process. He wrote that courts "would 'abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation' unless such precedents were 'flatly absurd or unjust.'"
The Framers also intended the judiciary to follow precedents from prior cases in their decision-making. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78 that courts should follow precedent in subsequent decisions to prevent judges from having too much power to interpret the law.
There are two types of stare decisis:
Horizontal stare decisis
Vertical stare decisis
Horizontal stare decisis refers to a court following its own precedent. For example, the Supreme Court generally will follow its own precedent on an issue. As another example, if a U.S. District Court has ruled on an issue in a prior decision, it will generally follow its precedent in a similar subsequent case.
Vertical stare decisis means that lower courts must strictly follow a higher court's precedent. For example, a federal court of appeals must follow Supreme Court precedent. Similarly, a U.S. District Court must adhere to a Circuit Court's precedent.
The Court also has different standards for applying stare decisis based on the case presented. If the case involves a federal law, the Court typically adheres to "strict stare decisis." This means the Court generally adheres to its own precedent when interpreting a federal law.
When the Court grants judicial review of a case involving a constitutional question it previously interpreted, it tends to adopt a "weaker form" of stare decisis. It justifies the different standards by noting that Congress can amend federal laws, but it is much harder to amend the Constitution. (Patterson v. McLean Credit Union (1989)).
However, even though the Court applies a weaker form of stare decisis concerning constitutional decisions, it still must have a special justification or strong grounds to overrule itself.
Overruling Precedent
Throughout history, legal scholars—and justices on the Supreme Court—have debated to what extent courts must strictly follow precedent.
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. Still, the Supreme Court respects its precedents and will often defer to them. However, the Court considers stare decisis as a "principle of policy" and weighs it against the case's merits and other considerations.
Additionally, the Court often avoids overruling itself by distinguishing between cases. It often will if it can distinguish the law or facts in a prior case compared to the one sitting before it. Moreover, the Court can limit the reach of a prior decision, making it inapplicable to the present case.
Stare Decisis in Action
Three related cases involving abortion provide examples of stare decisis in action. They also show how Supreme Court decisions affect individual rights, social norms, and politics.
These cases are:
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
As you will see, the Court used stare decisis in Roe to determine that the right to privacy also encompassed a right to abortion. In Casey, the Court again relied on stare decisis to reaffirm Roe and protect the right to an abortion. In Dobbs, however, the Court overruled Roe, breaking from stare decisis.
Roe v. Wade
Roe is one of the most well-known and controversial cases in American history. The Court determined that pregnant women had a substantive right to abortion, and it protected that right against most government restrictions.
The case involved a pregnant woman identified as "Jane Roe." She challenged several Texas state laws that criminalized abortions unless the mother's life was in danger. A Texas doctor also joined the lawsuit, arguing that the laws were too vague.
In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that:
An unborn fetus is not a legal person. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to the unborn.
The Constitution grants a pregnant person the right to an abortion. The Court relied on a prior decision that created a substantive due process right to privacy.
The right to abortion was absolute during the first three months of a pregnancy. During the second trimester, states could enact legislation to protect the pregnant person's life, including regulating abortions. During the third trimester, states could pass laws to protect the unborn fetus' potential life. However, states had to allow abortions when the mother's health or life was in danger.
In another decision, Doe v. Bolton (1973), the Court held that "health" included "emotional psychological, familial" and age considerations, along with medical factors or conditions.
Roe became one of the Court's most controversial decisions. Critics of the case argued that the Supreme Court "created" a right to abortion. Regarding Doe, Justice Byron White wrote in his dissent, "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment."
Others praised the decision, saying it was a victory for women's rights, privacy, and sexual freedom. Regardless of one's stance on abortion, the Court's decision in Roe affected every person in America.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
The issue in Casey revolved around the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania abortion law. The law required:
Women seeking an abortion to wait at least 24 hours before aborting the fetus
Abortion providers to give the mother information about alternatives to abortion
Abortion providers to notify the woman's husband if a married woman sought an abortion
In a 5-4 decision, the Court used the doctrine of stare decisis to reaffirm Roe (although it upheld most of the Pennsylvania law's provisions), despite some Justices expressing significant "reservations" about doing so. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter issued a "Joint Opinion," in which the majority reaffirmed Roe "whether or not" the Court's reasoning in Roe was "mistaken."
The Court created a new framework for deciding abortion cases. The Court held that it must consider whether the challenged law created an "undue burden" on the mother. The Court defined an undue burden as a "substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability."
In upholding Roe based on stare decisis, the Court also cited society's reliance interests on the prior decision. It noted that women's ability "to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives."
Additionally, the majority opinion stated, "people had organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . . . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail."
Although the majority slightly tweaked Roe's framework regarding pregnancy trimesters, its reliance on stare decisis allowed Roe to live on as the law of the land.
The majority opinion discussed stare decisis for more than 15 pages. As part of its discussion, the majority stated that although stare decisis is not an "inexorable command," the Court should not overrule a case unless there is a "special reason over and above the belief that [the] prior case was wrongly decided."
Like Roe, the Court's decision in Casey led to both criticism and praise.
Much of the criticism centered on the majority's interpretation and application of stare decisis. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent in which he mocked the majority and compared them to Justice Roger Taney (author of the infamous Dred Scott opinion, which upheld slavery). Justice William Rehnquist argued in his dissent that the majority ironically broke from its own precedent by relying on stare decisis to uphold Roe.
Dobbs v. Jackson
In 2022, the Supreme Court overturned both Roe and Casey. In overturning the cases, the Supreme Court held the Constitution does not provide pregnant people the right to abortions. Although the Court struck down the constitutional right to abortions, it gave all 50 states the ability to decide whether to allow abortions within their respective borders.
Dobbs involved a challenge to a Mississippi law that banned most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation. The law provided exceptions for medical emergencies and fetal abnormalities.
In a 6-3 majority decision, the Court held that although substantive due process protects some rights the Constitution does not enumerate, a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy is not one of them.
The Supreme Court upheld the Mississippi law. In doing so, it overturned Roe (and, therefore, Casey). The Court identified five factors to consider when deciding to overrule cases like Roe and Casey:
Whether the precedential decision contained errors, and, if so, the nature of the error(s)
The quality of reasoning contained in the prior decision
The workability of any new rule the prior decision may have created
The precedent's disruptive effect, if any, on other areas of law
The reliance interests of the prior decision, i.e., whether people or groups subsequently relied on it or not
The majority concluded that the legal reasoning in both Roe and Casey was significantly wrong. The Court also rejected the reliance interests it had noted in Casey.
Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the majority to uphold the Mississippi law in his concurring opinion. However, he disagreed with the majority about overruling Roe and Casey.
Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion in which he argued that Dobbs overruled all unenumerated rights currently granted by the principle of substantive due process. In essence, he argued to overrule the following cases:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) (establishing the constitutional right of Americans to use birth control and, more broadly, a right to privacy)
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) (which held that laws criminalizing sodomy were unconstitutional)
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) (establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage)
Loving v. Virginia (1967) (establishing that laws prohibiting interracial marriages violated the Constitution)
Justice Brett Kavanaugh disagreed with Justice Thomas' position. In his concurrence, Kavanaugh argued that Dobbs did not overturn the so-called "privacy cases" listed above.
In a joint dissenting opinion, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, and Elena Kagan criticized the majority for departing from the Court's precedent in Roe and Casey. They also criticized the Court for "undermining the Constitution's promise of freedom and equality for women."
For more information about Dobbs, read Looking at Future Supreme Court Abortion Fights and The Practical Impact of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.
The Enduring Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The doctrine of stare decisis allows citizens to form realistic expectations about the legal system, their rights, and their duties. These reliance interests are essential for citizens living in a society. It allows them to structure their day-to-day activities with an understanding of society's rules and expectations. In turn, this leads to self-governance and autonomy for the governed. It also leads to a stable and predictable legal system.
As Professor Len Niehoff wrote in an article for the American Bar Association, it is difficult to determine what impact reliance interests have on stare decisis in a post-Dobbs world. Niehoff writes that Dobbs indicates that the Court, as it currently stands, gives little credence to such interests.
The Court still follows stare decisis, just as it has since its creation in 1789. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has undoubtedly gotten cases right (see Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952)).
However, the Court has often had to overrule itself (see Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)), and its duty to uphold the Constitution will not prevent it from doing so in future cases. Read The Worth Supreme Court Decisions of All Time for more information about when the Court (or a constitutional amendment) overruled itself.
The Supreme Court still plays a vital role in upholding the Constitution and the Framers' vision for integrity and justice. Its judicial decisions will continue to affect American society and the rule of law, just as it has since its creation.
More On the Constitution
Learn about the most important legal document in the United States.