Written statements submitted to the court outlining a party`s legal or factual allegations about the case. Chief Justice John Roberts` statement in June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo provides a clear statement about the strong design of stare decisis. In that case, the court upheld its 2016 decision in Whole Woman`s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a similar Texas law that gives doctors performing abortions the right to admit patients to a nearby hospital. Roberts wrote, « The legal doctrine of stare decisis obliges us, in the absence of special circumstances, to treat similar cases on an equal footing. » Roberts provided the fifth vote to uphold the 2016 decision, even though he thought it was wrong. [40] Over time, courts in the United States, and in particular the Supreme Court, have developed various judicial decisions called « precedents. » These « rules and principles established in previous cases feed into future decisions of the Court of Justice ». [30] Compliance with the rules and principles established in previous cases as the basis for future court decisions is referred to as stare decisis. The U.S. Supreme Court considers stare decisis not only an important doctrine, but also « the means by which we ensure that the law not only changes in unpredictable ways, but evolves in an understandable and principled manner. » [31] Stare decisis aims to strengthen the legitimacy of the judicial process and promote the rule of law.
This is done by enhancing stability, security, predictability, consistency and consistency in the application of the law to cases and litigants. [30] By adhering to stare decisis, the Supreme Court seeks to preserve its role « as a prudent, impartial and predictable decision-maker who decides cases in accordance with the law and not according to the individual political preferences of judges. » [30] In Vasquez v. Hillery (1986), the Supreme Court succinctly stated that stare decisis « contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in its actions » by maintaining the notion « that fundamental principles are based on law and not on the inclinations of individuals. » [31] Justice McHugh of the High Court of Australia noted of precedents in Perre v Apand: In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term « superprecedent » in an article they wrote about testing the theories of precedents by counting citations. [18] Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term « superprecedent » was then associated with another issue: the difficulty of reversing a decision. [19] In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court`s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey for arguing that if a party can take control of the Court in a case of great national importance (as in Roe v. Wade), that party can protect its position from being overthrown « by some sort of super-stare decisis. » [20] The controversial notion that certain decisions are virtually immune to overturn, whether or not they have been properly decided, is the idea to which the term « super-stare decisis » usually refers today. However, most legal texts contain certain ambiguities – situations inevitably arise when the words chosen by the legislator do not deal with specific facts or tensions arise between two or more laws. In such cases, the court must analyze the various sources available and find a solution to the ambiguity. The « canons of legal interpretation » are discussed in a separate article.
Once the ambiguity is removed, this resolution will have a binding effect as described in the rest of this article. One law professor described the convincing precedents as follows: According to Lord Talbot, « it is much better to follow the known general rules than to follow a particular precedent which might be based on a reason unknown to us. » Blackstone says that a previous decision must generally be followed unless it is « patently absurd or unfair, » and in the latter case, if overturned, it is explained not that the previous decision was bad law, but that it was not law. Insider trading in the securities industry is the misuse of important non-public information for profit. The insider can exchange the information for his wallet or sell it to a third party for a fee. The precedent that courts rely on when dealing with insider trading is the 1983 case of Dirks v. SEC. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that insiders are guilty of deriving, directly or indirectly, material benefits from disclosing the information to someone who responds to it. In addition, the exploitation of confidential information exists when the information is passed on to a relative or friend. This decision has become a precedent and is upheld by courts dealing with financial crimes of a similar nature.
The second principle, convincing precedents, reflects the general precedents on which a court can base all its decisions. [5] As noted above, Salman appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the Second Circuit`s decision did not align with the Supreme Court`s precedent of Dirks v. The SEC and the Court of Appeals therefore failed to respect the principle of stare decisis. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the conviction. « Salman`s behavior is at the heart of Dirks` rule regarding gifts, » Judge Alito wrote. The legal power of a court to hear and decide a particular type of case. It is also used as a synonym for jurisdiction, i.e. the geographical area over which the court has territorial jurisdiction to rule on cases.
The use of precedents was justified to ensure predictability, stability, fairness and effectiveness of the law. The use of precedents contributes to the predictability of the law by providing clues about a person`s rights and obligations in certain circumstances. A person who is considering an action has the opportunity to know the legal result in advance. It also means that lawyers can provide legal advice to clients based on established legal standards. There are disadvantages and advantages to a binding precedent, as academics and lawyers have noted. In a 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed American lawyers` over-reliance on precedent—particularly the persuasion of marginal relevance—rather than the substance of the case in question, as a major factor in escalating legal fees in the 20th century. He argued that courts should prohibit citing persuasive power outside their jurisdiction and force lawyers and parties to rely only on binding precedents, with two exceptions: a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff against a defendant on the basis of a claim that the defendant has failed to comply with a legal obligation, which caused harm to the plaintiff. As Colin Starger has pointed out, the contemporary rule of stare decisis, derived from Brandeis` innovative dissent in Burnet, then split into strong and weak notions following the disagreement between Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall in Payne v.