Stability vs. correction
The doctrine balances predictable law against fixing decisions a current court believes were wrongly decided.
In plain English
When courts stand by past rulings.
Stare decisis — "to stand by things decided" — means courts usually stick with what they ruled before, so the law stays predictable.
Simple example
In Dobbs v. Jackson (2022), the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, holding that stare decisis did not require keeping the precedent.
Why it matters
What the term actually changes.
Court legitimacy
How readily a court overturns precedent shapes public perception of whether law follows principle or politics.
How it works
The mechanics, in practice.
Binding precedent
Lower courts must follow higher-court rulings; the Supreme Court generally follows its own.
Overruling factors
Courts weigh whether a precedent is workable, deeply relied upon, and consistent with related rulings before discarding it.
Related guide
Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?
A look at the constitutional rules, historical trends and reform proposals behind a debate over how long justices should serve.
Read the guide → Related issue brief
Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?
A long-running debate over judicial tenure has gained new prominence amid proposals to cap justices' service at 18 years.
Read the brief →You’ve learned the term. Now vote.
Should Supreme Court justices have term limits?
Live results — 152 voters
Anonymous · one vote per person