Stare Decisis and the Rule of Law

Part A 

Stare decisis, meaning “Let the decision stand,” is a law principle used in the Anglo-American law system and holds that court systems refer back to previous rulings of a similar case before deciding on the case at hand (Marshall, 2016). Take, for instance, the California court system. When making a ruling, the California state appellate court is obliged to stick by the previous decisions of a superior court within the state’s judicial system such as the Supreme Court of California or the Supreme Court of the United States.  

Justice Kennedy proved that Stare decisis is a “principle policy” and not a “mechanical formula” that holds as a final decision in the  Lawrence v. Texas  case in 2003 when he overruled the  Bowers v. Hardwick  case of 1986. In  Lawrence v. Texas , the U.S Supreme Court reversed the regulation by the state of Texas which outlawed same gender intimate sexual conduct by two complying adults was unconstitutional (Lash, 2013). This overturned the  Bowers v. Hardwick  (1986) precedent which had upheld the sodomy law. This is one of the many scenarios which showed that a Stare decisis is ‘not an end in itself.’ When a court says “stare decisis is not an inexorable command,” therefore, it brings to the understanding that though the courts may contend with the previous court decisions and be reluctant to overrule them, there are instances that force a court to overturn a precedent. Court decisions, however similar, may not have universal applications. Therefore, a court must weigh the facts and issues of a particular case and decide whether or not a Stare decisis applies.  

Part B 

Too much flexibility in the court system whereby there is a negligible observance of the Stare decisis principle would result in the uncertainty of the law. This is because inconsistencies in developing judicial standards upon which cases are weighed means that the courts are not faithful to their integrity of the legal process. Wherefore, overruling a Stare decisi requires three vital considerations. First, the judge must clarify to the court on the reasons why the Stare decisis does not outweigh a particular set of facts and evidence in the ongoing case, or in our scenario, why the  Browers v. Hardwick (1986)  was different from the  Lawrence v. Texas.‘ ’ Second, the judge must clarify to the court on the set of facts and constitutional provisions that classifies the prior Stare decisis as wrongly held. In the  Lawrence v.Texas,  Justice Kennedy made his decision after the plaintiff stated the exact points where Bowers was wrong. The plaintiff then asked the court to reconsider the Bowers case before moving on to handle Lawrence (Lash, 2013). At last, the judge can choose to ignore the Stare decisis, precisely what Justice Kennedy did.  

Considering the significance of Stare decisis in making court rulings, if it is applied as a mechanical formula, the American the court system would be too rigid and cause legal pedantry. Proponents of Stare decisis argue that the rule would turn our justice system into a standard-law system (Waldron, 2012). However, a common-law system that gives no room for corrections regardless of whether or not the precedent is erroneous does not reflect true justice. The courts will not have the freedom to examine a mistake made in a prior decision, which would suggest that the justice system is compromised. This is particularly true considering that there is historical evidence to prove meaningful errors in past rulings. 

References 

Lash, K. T. (2013). The cost of judicial error: Stare decisis and the role of normative theory.  Notre Dame L. Rev. ,  89 , 2189. 

Marshall, G. (2016). What is binding in a precedent. In  Interpreting precedents  (pp. 503-517). Routledge. 

Waldron, J. (2012). Stare decisis and the rule of law: a layered approach.  Mich. L. Rev. ,  111 , 1.