The common law structure of the United States has a unified system for deciding legal issues with the principle of stare decisis at its core, which makes the concept of precedent extremely important. A previous decision or judgment in a case is called a precedent. Stare decisis requires courts to use precedents when overseeing an ongoing case in similar circumstances. One of the most famous examples of a precedent reversal is Brown v. Board of Education, where Supreme Court justices jointly ruled in a civil rights case against racial segregation in public schools after declaring it unconstitutional. This decision overturned the “separate but equal” precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896, who ruled that racially segregated public facilities were legal as long as the facilities met the same standards for African Americans as those for white Americans. Stare decisis, Latin for sticking to things decided,1FootnoteThe full Latin expression is stare decisis et non quieta movere – hold on to the matter and do not disturb the peace. See James C. Rehnquist, Note, The Power That Shall Be Vested in a Precedent: Stare Decisis, The Constitution, and the Supreme Court, 66 B.U. L.
Rev. 345, 347 (1986). is a legal doctrine according to which a court follows the principles, rules or standards of its previous decisions (or decisions of higher courts) when deciding a case with arguably similar facts.2FootnoteStare Decisis, Black`s Law Dictionary 1626 (10. 2014) (definition of stare decisis as a precedent doctrine that a tribunal must follow previous judicial decisions when the same points recur in a dispute); Id., p. 1366 (Precedent defined as a decided case serving as a basis for the determination of subsequent cases involving similar facts or issues). This essay does not examine the Supreme Court`s dependence on state or foreign court precedents. Nor does it examine, as the Court held, whether a particular sentence of an opinion constitutes a binding obligation necessary for the purposes of stare decisis or, on the contrary, a non-binding obiter dictum. See generally Obiter dictum, Black`s Law Dictionary 1177 (9. 2009) (definition of obiter dictum as a judicial remark made when presenting a judicial opinion, but unnecessary for the decision in this case and therefore not a precedent (although it may be considered persuasive)). The doctrine of stare decisis has horizontal and vertical aspects.
A court that adheres to the principle of horizontal stare decisis will follow its own previous decisions, except in exceptional circumstances (e.g., the Supreme Court follows a precedent unless it has become too difficult for the lower courts to apply it).3FootnoteHorizontal stare decisis, Black`s Law Dictionary 1537 (10th ed. 2014) (Definition of horizontal stare decisis as doctrine, than a court. must comply with its own previous decisions, unless it finds compelling reasons to override). In contrast, vertical stare decisis requires lower courts to strictly follow the decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction (e.g., a federal appellate court must follow the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court).4FootnoteSee id. (Definition of vertical stare decisis as a doctrine that a court must strictly follow the decisions of higher courts in the same jurisdiction). Res judicata is a Latin term meaning “a decided question”. It is a legal doctrine that ensures that the same case cannot be heard several times. This doctrine prevents the second litigation of a claim that has already been tried in the past, and the court uses it to refuse to reconsider a common law and civil law case. The doctrine of stare decisis in American jurisprudence has its roots in eighteenth-century English common law. In 1765, English jurist William Blackstone described the doctrine of English common law as a strong presumption that, in order to promote the stability of the law, judges would respect precedents where the same points recurred in litigation, unless those precedents were merely absurd or unjust.5Footnote1 William Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 69-70 that it is not in the chest of a later judge to change or deviate from his private feelings).
At least some of the framers of the Constitution advocated that judges respect judicial precedents because they limited judges` discretion in interpreting ambiguous provisions of the law. For example, in Federalist No. 78 During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, Alexander Hamilton argued in an essay dealing with concerns about the judiciary that courts should apply precedents to prevent judges from having unlimited discretion in interpreting ambiguous legal texts.6FootnoteFederalist No.