The Role of Precedent

The doctrine of precedent is one of the most important traditions in the American legal system. This doctrine means that courts will look at the decisions made in prior cases to determine the appropriate resolution for new cases.

For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has the power to decide cases that involve questions about the federal Constitution and other federal laws. The Supreme Court is the final authority on cases heard in the federal court system. If other, lower courts in the federal system have a new case that concerns an issue that the Supreme Court has already addressed, those lower courts are required to follow the law as it was interpreted by the Supreme Court. State courts also must follow the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court to the extent that the state court is reviewing issues that include U.S. constitutional or federal law.

The doctrine of precedent also is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis, which means “to stand by things decided” in Latin. Stare decisis means that lower courts must follow the decisions of the court above it so long as those decisions are relevant to the case that the lower court is deciding.

Without precedent and its related concepts, there can be no predictability in the law. Precedent makes the law stable. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the value of precedent numerous times. In 1932, Justice Louis Brandeis stressed the importance of precedent when he wrote, “Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right.”¹¹ Precedent is used to ensure that laws are fairly and consistently applied.

The doctrine of precedent is not absolute. Precedent can change when it is apparent that society’s values on a particular issue have changed. Precedent also can change when a high court finds that the application of precedent is unreasonable. In Payne v. Tennessee (1991), Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “Adhering to precedent is usually the wise policy, because, in most matters, it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than it be settled right. Nevertheless, when governing decisions are unworkable or are badly reasoned, this Court has never felt constrained to follow precedent. Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather, it is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.”¹²

Overturning precedent is a milestone event for the law because it changes established legal principles. In essence, it changes the rules that judges and lawyers follow. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education (1954) are two cases that dramatically illustrate how precedent changes as society evolves.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the U.S. Supreme Court legalized racial segregation practices. These practices also were known as “separate but equal” practices. In this case, Homer Plessy boarded a train in Louisiana. Plessy was seven-eighths white and one-eighth black. He sat in the whites-only train car. Louisiana law considered Plessy to be black and required him to sit in the blacks-only train car. Plessy refused and was subsequently arrested.

In Plessy, the plaintiff argued that these separate but equal practices violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that all citizens be provided equal protection under law. In its decision, the Court held that separate but equal practices, such as having train cars segregated based upon race, were not inherently unequal. The Court stated that these practices did not violate the U.S. Constitution. For almost 60 years, “separate but equal” was the law. The court’s ruling was used to justify several discriminatory “Jim Crow” segregation laws used throughout the United States that segregated blacks and whites in schools, restaurants, restrooms, and public transportation. These laws were challenged again in the 1954 case, Brown v. Board of Education.

The Brown case was a consolidation of five different cases from four different states that all addressed the same issue: racial segregation in public schools. In Brown, the plaintiffs argued that “separate but equal” practices were inherently unfair. They argued that in reality these practices perpetuated the inferior treatment of blacks and had a negative impact on black Americans. Plaintiffs, represented by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), challenged the Court to overrule the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson.

In Brown, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court reversed its holding in Plessy. In Brown, Chief Justice Warren wrote, “We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”¹³

The Brown decision was remarkable because the Court departed from the precedent set in Plessy. In fact, the Court specifically rejected the reasoning that it had used to support its decision in Plessy. Brown established new legal precedent, that separate but equal laws are unconstitutional.