{"id":31027,"date":"2016-04-04T20:33:42","date_gmt":"2016-04-05T01:33:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/constitution\/article3\/annotation03.html"},"modified":"2024-08-07T15:39:40","modified_gmt":"2024-08-07T20:39:40","slug":"annotation03","status":"publish","type":"constitution","link":"https:\/\/constitution.findlaw.com\/article3\/annotation03.html","title":{"rendered":"The Effect of Supreme Court Rulings and Stare Decisis"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

The Effect of Supreme Court Rulings and Stare Decisis<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Samuel Strom, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Edward Maggio, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. 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<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

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.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

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.<\/p>\n

The legal doctrine of stare decisis<\/i> is the guiding doctrine in American jurisprudence. Stare decisis<\/i> translates to “to stand by things decided.” In other words, courts rely on prior court decisions when deciding a legal dispute.<\/p>\n

However, stare decisis<\/i> raises several questions that legal scholars continue to debate<\/a>. If the Constitution<\/a> is the supreme law of the land, must courts follow stare decisis<\/i> even if the prior decision incorrectly interpreted the Constitution? In other words, should courts always defer to stare decisis<\/i>, or does the Constitution take priority?<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Supreme Court<\/b><\/h2>\n

Article III of the Constitution<\/a> establishes the judicial branch, comprising the Supreme Court<\/a> and the lower federal courts. Specifically, it established the Supreme Court and allowed Congress<\/a> to establish lower courts as necessary.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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<\/i><\/a> (1803), the Supreme Court’s ultimate duty is to ensure the laws comply with the Constitution.<\/p>\n

The judges who sit on the Supreme Court bench are called justices<\/a>. In 1869, Congress set the number of justices to nine \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

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<\/a>, it cannot control court decisions interpreting them.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s Authority to Hear Cases<\/b><\/h3>\n

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over some disputes<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

After a litigant exhausts their legal options in state court or federal appeals system, they may file a petition for certiorari<\/a>. If the Court grants a writ of certiorari, it will review the case.<\/p>\n

Given that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n

Understanding Stare Decisis<\/b><\/h2>\n

The doctrine of stare decisis<\/i> 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<\/a> “would ‘abide by former precedents, where the same points come again in litigation’ unless such precedents were ‘flatly absurd or unjust.'”<\/p>\n

The Framers<\/a> also intended the judiciary to follow precedents from prior cases in their decision-making. Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78<\/a> that courts should follow precedent in subsequent decisions to prevent judges from having too much power to interpret the law.<\/p>\n

There are two types of stare decisis<\/i>:<\/p>\n