Stare decisis is a legal principle that compels a court of law to follow established precedent when ruling on cases concerning similar issues and circumstances. It is a Latin term that means “to stand by the things that have been decided.” In practice, it means that a court of law should adhere to the ruling from a previous case when faced with similar cases.

Stare Decisis History

Although it’s impossible to pinpoint the exact moment this doctrine was first established, it emerged from a desire for continuity and certainty in the law dating back to the 14th century. Common law courts in England and the United States have conventionally followed the stare decisis principle, differentiating them from civil law systems.

Common law courts follow their own previous rulings or those made by higher courts (e.g., the Supreme Court). This saves the court time and money, since following precedent when making judicial decisions means the court proceedings are much shorter. This practice was transferred to the United States from England, and it is the defining feature of the American judicial infrastructure.

However, this doctrine isn’t always followed to the letter. For example, as far back as medieval England, common law courts decided against precedents they regarded as “bad law,” because there were no reliable written reports of these cases, or they felt the rulings did not apply to the matter at hand.

The Purpose of Stare Decisis

One of the primary purposes of this doctrine is to ensure continuity, uniformity, and certainty in the law. Rulings should be made according to precedent to ensure fairness and consistency, and promote judicial efficiency (i.e., save time and money).

Also, since cases are judged based on prior precedents, the judiciary is somewhat protected from external political or personal attacks or bias based on personal interest. This reinforces the belief that common law court judgments are solely based on legal and neutral considerations, making it easier to achieve legal and policy goals. It ensures that individuals with similar cases are treated exactly alike and that judges in lower courts do not make rulings that are out of line with those established by higher courts.

There are two types of applications of this rule: Vertical stare decisis ensures that lower courts adhere to precedents established by courts above them in the hierarchy of the same court system. On the other hand, horizontal stare decisis ensures a court follows its own precedents.

What Is a Precedent?

In layman’s terms, precedents are previous court decisions that serve as a benchmark for deciding on subsequent cases with identical or similar legal facts. It is not a formal rule; rather, it serves as a guide, but it’s usually followed fairly strictly. A precedent can be original, binding, or persuasive.

Original Precedent

An original precedent is set when a court must make a ruling without adhering to a previous decision, most often because its court system has not encountered a prior case with similar or identical legal circumstances.

An example is the case of Employment Div. v. Smith from 1990, when the US Supreme Court set a precedent that “a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs, even if used in a religious ceremony.” Two Native American employees filed for unemployment benefits in Oregon, after being fired for failing a drug test because of peyote use in a religious ceremony.

Binding Precedent

This is the most common form of precedent: Lower courts must follow the rulings made by superior courts within the same jurisdiction. Once an appellant court sets a precedent, it issues a written report that contains details of the facts, as well as the court’s decisions or rulings in the case and requires complete adherence to these precedents by lower courts.

There can be a few exceptions to binding precedents, as Supreme Courts are not always bound by precedents established in their respective appellant courts.

Persuasive Precedent

These precedents are not binding, meaning that judges do not have to adhere to them, and there is no complete reliance on them when ruling on fresh cases. However, these precedents can influence decisions made in future cases or serve as a guide when creating new precedents.

Stare Decisis vs. Precedent

We have established what a precedent is and defined stare decisis. While it might be tempting to use the terms interchangeably, they do not mean the same thing. One serves as a guide (precedent), while the other is a principle that compels you to follow the guide (stare decisis).

Here’s an example: In the hypothetical case of Miss Lavender and Miss Primrose (Lavender v. Primrose), two women living in Ohio, Miss Lavender lent a certain amount of money to Miss Primrose, with an agreement to pay it back at a specific time. Miss Primrose has defaulted on her debt and refuses to pay. Miss Lavender is insisting that not only should Miss Primose pay her back, but she should also pay interest for the long-overdue debt. If they both end up in the Ohio Supreme Court of law and the presiding judge decides that Miss Primose repays her debt, but with no additional interest, this case can be cited as precedent in subsequent cases with similar circumstances. The following precedent will be ensured by stare decisis.

In other words, the doctrine of stare decisis obligates the Ohio Supreme Court to use the Lavender v. Primrose case as a precedent in new cases involving a lender and borrower, where the borrower refuses to repay (horizontal stare decisis). This also means that lower courts in Ohio within the same court system would cite this case as a precedent because it was ruled by Ohio’s Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction is superior (vertical stare decisis). However, lower courts in another state are not compelled to adhere to this precedent because they aren’t under the jurisdiction of the Ohio Supreme Court.

All courts in the US are required to adhere to the precedents of the US Supreme Court, because it is the highest court in the country and a judicial decision made there has the highest authority.

Overturning A Precedent

Over the past decades, there have been instances where precedents were overturned. Although it is unusual and rarely happens, it is possible, especially when precedents were poorly argued, badly reasoned, or simply wrong.

One of the most famous examples of reversing a precedent is the case of Brown v. Board of Education, where the Supreme Court justices collectively ruled in a civil rights case against racial segregation in public schools, after deeming it unconstitutional. This ruling overturned the “separate but equal” precedent ruled in the Plessy v. Ferguson case of 1896, which said that racially segregated public facilities were legal, so long as the facilities for Black people and whites were equal.

The “Separate but equal” precedent stood for several decades until May 17, 1954, when it was abolished in the public education field, because segregated schools were inherently unequal and deprived the students of equal protection of the laws instituted by the 14th Amendment. This was after Oliver Brown filed a class-action suit in 1951, against the Board of Education of Topeka in Kansas, because his daughter, Linda Brown, was refused entry to Topeka’s all-white elementary schools.

This case and four others involving segregation in schools were combined into a single case named “Brown v. Board of Education” in 1952. This case is often referred to as a “super-precedent” because it ended the segregation of public schools in the United States and is unlikely to be overruled or overturned.

Advantages of Stare Decisis

This doctrine is popular for several reasons:

Certainty and Predictability

One of the major reasons this doctrine has amassed a lot of supporters is that it supposedly ensures certainty and predictability in the law, since precedents from previous cases guide the decision-making process. This way, people usually know what to expect when two cases have similar facts.

Uniformity in Law

This doctrine also promotes uniformity in law across jurisdictions. As stated earlier, precedents set by the US Supreme Court are adhered to by lower courts across the states, and the same rulings are expected regardless of location.

Saves Time and Resources

Since they can adhere to set precedents, judges do not need to waste time reaching a decision, as they are expected to follow rulings from older cases. This fosters judicial efficiency when ruling on new issues.

Promotes Judicial Fairness

This method of judgment promotes judicial fairness in the sense that it is supposed to be protected from the influence of external personal or political factors, as everyone knows decisions are made based on previous rulings.

Disadvantages of Stare Decisis

Stare decisis has been criticized for various reasons, as most critics believe it does more harm than good sometimes. Below are some of the cons of stare decisis.


While we have established that some precedents can be overturned, this is very rarely the case. The strict application of stare decisis has no room for the minor, but often significant, discrepancies between two similar cases. It is usually very difficult to overturn precedents even when new facts come to light.

Time-Consuming Research

Since new cases should follow precedents, researching older similar issues from years or decades ago can take time, as there may be tons of case files to go through. Also, some cases have dissimilar judgments; lawyers then have to determine the ratio decidendi or “rationale for the decision” of the judge(s) that ruled the previous precedents to know if the same applies to the current case.

Antiquated Rulings

Due to their nature of being set once and practically never challenged, many precedents are outdated and do not align with the present world. Over-reliance on stare decisis impedes change as our cultures and situations evolve, as judges are used to following precedents without evaluating new facts. And while relying on precedents is meant to discourage political or undue influence on future decisions, there is no such insurance for the rulings that constitute the original precedent.

Undemocratic Decision-Making

The judges who make decisions that set these precedents are not elected, but appointed. As such, judicial decision-making is rarely considered equivalent to the will of the people.