Our Preview of that case contains further discussion of the doctrine. Courts, however, need not always adhere to precedent of prior courts. Courts are typically bound by decisions either they, or their superior courts, have made. For example, a federal district court which would be a trial-level court in New York is in the Second Federal District.
That district court needs to adhere to a decision in a case made by a Second District Circuit Court of Appeals. Conversely, that same federal district court need not adhere to a decision made by any district or appellate court in any other district.
The Second Circuit District Court may find that precedent to be persuasive, but the trial court in this example is not bound by that other districts' precedent. Although the precedent may not be binding, it may be extraordinarily persuasive, especially if the facts of the precedent case and the original court's rationale for its decision are very similar to the current case. Stare decisis is typically used by common law legal systems.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not wholly isolate precedents from review. Congressional action by statute may overturn judicial decisions on statutory issues, and constitutional amendments may overturn judicial decisions on constitutional issues. Remedial legislative action is frequently not required, however, because the judiciary may overturn its own decisions when certain conditions are met. Below, Part II discusses how precedents can lose their binding effect through judicial action and explores principles that guide remedial judicial action set forth by the Supreme Court.
In the federal system, the Supreme Court may overturn its own precedent. Factors particularly relevant to this assessment include a workability, b reliance, c abandonment, and d legitimacy.
In Payne v. Tennessee , the Court overturned two precedents— Booth v. Maryland [26] and South Carolina v. Gathers [27] —to hold that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence. Planned Parenthood , the Supreme Court declined to overturn Roe v.
The Supreme Court has never clarified the exact weight to give to the workability factor or how to balance workability against other competing considerations.
In Roper v. Simmons , for example, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the death penalty for minors, [33] overturning the contrary precedent of Stanford v. Courts also consider reliance interests in deciding whether to overturn a precedent. United States , [38] the Court also alluded to reliance interests in declining to overrule Miranda v.
The weight of reliance interests was a significant point of contention in Lawrence v. Texas , [42] where the Court overturned Bowers v.
Hardwick [43] to hold that the Constitution protected the right to intimate homosexual conduct. Indeed, there has been no individual or societal reliance on Bowers of the sort that could counsel against overturning its holding once there are compelling reasons to do so.
Like the workability inquiry, the Court has not given the reliance inquiry any preassigned weight in a stare decisis analysis. Department of Revenue of Illinois , [49] a precedent prohibiting a state from imposing a sales tax collection duty on a mail-order reseller if the seller lacks a physical presence within the state. Legitimacy concerns form a fourth relevant consideration in a stare decisis analysis. The Court has stated that legitimacy concerns are especially pressing when the Court analyzes the precedential power of a landmark case on a publicly divisive issue.
Principles for overturning precedent have evolved significantly from the time of the early judiciary. Stare decisis has origins in ancient Greece, Rome, and Egypt, where judges looked to earlier decisions for guidance on how to interpret new cases that they faced. At the time, however, consulting past cases was not an obligation. Medieval English common law may be the first time a concept like stare decisis was written down. Around the year , an English judge named Henry de Bracton wrote a treatise that supported the idea of legal precedent.
In the English case Virley v. Gunstone , for example, an appellate court a court that handles appeals decided not to overturn a decision based on the idea that it should conform to past decisions. He attempted to further popularize his legal philosophy by writing a thirteen-volume treatise called The Reports.
A growing number of lawyers began to adopt his legal philosophy. However, there were still years where precedents were strongly upheld, and others when they were viewed more liberally. Stare decisis has a long history in the United States.
The Framers of the Constitution believed in the importance of the doctrine, and Alexander Hamilton believed that it should be obligatory. James Madison, however, disagreed that following legal precedent should be compulsory. Stare decisis became less strict by , when a longstanding precedent set by Swift v.
Tyson was overruled in Erie Railroad Company v. Some of the advantages of stare decisis include:. Some of the disadvantages of stare decisis include:. Several countries use stare decisis but to varying degrees.
Here are a few examples:. A qualified dividend is a distribution made to an equity owner in a company that qualifies for the lower tax rate applied to long-term capital gains. Zero-based budgeting involves building a new spending plan from scratch rather than from previous spending levels.
Mutually exclusive refers to the relationship between two or more events that cannot occur at the same time. An inferior good is something that people buy less of when their income goes up, which is the opposite of what happens with a normal good. Updated January 29, Stare decisis is kind of like momentum. Ready to start investing? Sign up for Robinhood. Why is stare decisis important?
Where does stare decisis come from? What are the advantages and disadvantages of stare decisis? Some of the advantages of stare decisis include: Consistency and fairness: Stare decisis is meant to ensure that similar legal cases will reach decisions that are consistent with one another.
The idea is to help the courts better implement laws, for citizens to better understand them, and to instill a sense that the legal system treats citizens fairly — In other words, all cases are treated the same.
0コメント