Why is precedent important to the judicial branch

First, judges must follow the precedent cases. If they do not, then it is impossible to predict what the law is. The second is that with hundreds of cases being decided every day, it is hard to keep up with the relevant decision.

It is not unusual for several courts to be deciding cases on the same subject at the same time, with no good way to coordinate their opinions. Frequently the courts will reach different conclusions about the law. The state court in San Francisco might ban the use of Zoneout in the workplace, but the court in Los Angeles might allow it.

Until the California Supreme Court resolves the issue, medical care providers in the two different regions are facing different laws. This type of split also happens between federal courts of appeal, sometimes with three or four parts of the country under different interpretations of a given federal law. The alternative to the common law system is called a civil law system. Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases.

Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress. The Court's caseload is almost entirely appellate in nature, and the Court's decisions cannot be appealed to any authority, as it is the final judicial arbiter in the United States on matters of federal law.

However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts. The Court also has original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors and other diplomats, and in cases between states. Although the Supreme Court may hear an appeal on any question of law provided it has jurisdiction, it usually does not hold trials.

Instead, the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied. Lower courts are obligated to follow the precedent set by the Supreme Court when rendering decisions. In almost all instances, the Supreme Court does not hear appeals as a matter of right; instead, parties must petition the Court for a writ of certiorari.

It is the Court's custom and practice to "grant cert" if four of the nine Justices decide that they should hear the case. Of the approximately 7, requests for certiorari filed each year, the Court usually grants cert to fewer than These are typically cases that the Court considers sufficiently important to require their review; a common example is the occasion when two or more of the federal courts of appeals have ruled differently on the same question of federal law.

If the Court grants certiorari, Justices accept legal briefs from the parties to the case, as well as from amicus curiae, or "friends of the court. Before issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court usually hears oral arguments, where the various parties to the suit present their arguments and the Justices ask them questions.

If the case involves the federal government, the Solicitor General of the United States presents arguments on behalf of the United States.

The Justices then hold private conferences, make their decision, and often after a period of several months issue the Court's opinion, along with any dissenting arguments that may have been written. The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime.

Supreme Court faces the question of whether to overrule itself on abortion rights. Wade , which allowed women to have abortions in most circumstances. Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent.

If a court in the past reviewed a particular set of facts and decided a case in a specific way, fairness dictates it should decide another similar case the same way. Precedent promotes uniformity and consistency in the law. In addition, precedent promotes judicial efficiency: Courts do not have to decide from scratch every time.

Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior. But not all precedents are equal, and several current Supreme Court justices have signaled that they might be open to overturning even long-standing rulings that interpret the Constitution. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only times — barely one-half of one percent.

It was not until the s under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that it started to overturn precedents with any frequency.

These were cases such as United States v. Before then, of course, many cases asked the court to interpret clauses of the Constitution for the first time, so there were often no precedents to confront or overturn. Legitimacy concerns form a fourth relevant consideration in a stare decisis analysis. The Court has stated that legitimacy concerns are especially pressing when the Court analyzes the precedential power of a landmark case on a publicly divisive issue.

Principles for overturning precedent have evolved significantly from the time of the early judiciary. Statistical studies reveal that the Court has grown increasingly comfortable with overturning its own precedents. John M. Walker, Jr. The assistance of Ariela C. Anhalt in the preparation of this commentary is gratefully acknowledged by the author.

This Commentary is also available in Chinese at the above hyperlink. The information and views set out in this Commentary are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of the China Guiding Cases Project. United States , U. Tennessee , U. Pennsylvania v. Casey , U. Simmons , U. Department of Revenue of Ill.

Peterson ed. Play Icon Play icon in a circular border. Table of Contents 1 Commentary 1.