Stare decisis (Latin for 'to stand by things decided') is the legal doctrine under which courts follow legal precedents when deciding cases with similar facts, giving the law stability and predictability and supporting the legitimacy of the judicial branch (AP Gov Topic 2.9).
Stare decisis is the doctrine that courts should follow precedent. When the Supreme Court faces a case with facts similar to one it already decided, it usually rules the same way. That's the whole idea, and it's why a case like Marbury v. Madison (1803) still controls how judicial review works more than two centuries later.
Why does this matter so much for the courts specifically? The judiciary has no army and no budget power. As Federalist No. 78 argues, its authority rests on people believing its rulings are law, not politics. Stare decisis is the main tool for earning that belief. If rulings flipped every time new justices arrived, the Court would look like just another political branch. That said, the CED is explicit that precedent isn't permanent. Ideological changes in the Court's composition, driven by presidential appointments, have led the Court to establish new precedents or reject old ones. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturning Plessy v. Ferguson is the classic example of the Court deciding a precedent was wrong and breaking from it.
Stare decisis lives in Unit 2 (Interactions Among Branches of Government), specifically Topic 2.9, Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch. It directly supports learning objective 2.9.A, which asks you to explain the role of legal precedent in judicial decision making. It also connects to 2.8.A on judicial review, because Federalist No. 78's argument for judicial independence only works if courts decide cases by law and precedent rather than politics. The exam tension you need to articulate is this push and pull. Stare decisis builds legitimacy through consistency, but presidential appointments shift the Court's ideology, and a shifted Court can overturn precedent. Both halves of that sentence are essential knowledge in the CED.
Keep studying AP Gov Unit 2
Precedent (Unit 2)
Precedent is the past ruling itself; stare decisis is the rule that says 'follow it.' Think of precedent as the map and stare decisis as the instruction to stay on the road. You can't explain one on an FRQ without the other.
Judicial Review (Unit 2)
Judicial review (from Marbury v. Madison) gives the Court its power; stare decisis disciplines how that power gets used over time. Marbury itself is the ultimate proof of stare decisis at work, since the Court has stood by that 1803 decision ever since.
Brown v. Board of Education (Units 2 and 3)
Brown is the go-to example of the Court rejecting stare decisis, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson's 'separate but equal' precedent in 1954. It shows that breaking precedent can strengthen legitimacy when the old precedent was unjust, and it doubles as a required case for Unit 3's civil rights content.
Checks and Balances (Unit 2)
Presidential appointments (confirmed by the Senate) are how the other branches reshape the Court's ideology, which is exactly the mechanism the CED says leads to new or rejected precedents. Stare decisis is where appointment politics and judicial doctrine collide.
Multiple-choice questions test whether you understand both sides of stare decisis. Some stems ask why following precedent builds legitimacy (citing previous decisions promotes consistency and predictability). Others flip it, like a dissenting justice complaining the majority 'abandons a century of established jurisprudence,' and ask you to recognize that as a stare decisis concern. You should also be ready to explain why overturning precedent in Brown v. Board was significant despite breaking from stare decisis. On the FRQ side, the SCOTUS Comparison question (Q3) is where this concept earns points. The 2026 exam's Q3 paired McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) with a non-required case, and that question type is built on precedent logic. You identify the shared constitutional principle and explain how the required case's reasoning applies to the new one. That is stare decisis in action, even when the term doesn't appear in the prompt.
These get used interchangeably, but they're not the same thing. A precedent is a specific past decision (Plessy, Marbury, Brown). Stare decisis is the doctrine instructing courts to follow those precedents in cases with similar facts. On the exam, say a court 'followed precedent under the principle of stare decisis,' not that it 'followed stare decisis cases.' Knowing the difference makes your FRQ reasoning sharper.
Stare decisis means 'to stand by things decided' and requires courts to follow legal precedents when deciding cases with similar facts.
Following precedent gives the law stability and predictability, which is a major source of the judicial branch's legitimacy since it has no enforcement power of its own.
Stare decisis is not absolute; ideological changes in the Court's composition from presidential appointments have led the Court to establish new precedents or reject existing ones.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is the classic example of the Court overturning precedent, rejecting Plessy v. Ferguson's 'separate but equal' doctrine.
Precedent is the past ruling itself, while stare decisis is the doctrine that courts should follow it.
The SCOTUS Comparison FRQ runs on stare decisis logic, asking you to apply a required case's reasoning to a new case with similar facts.
Stare decisis is the legal doctrine under which courts follow legal precedents when deciding cases with similar facts. It appears in Topic 2.9 (Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch) and supports learning objective 2.9.A on the role of precedent in judicial decision making.
No. The Court can and does overturn precedent, most famously in Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which rejected Plessy v. Ferguson. The CED specifically notes that ideological shifts from presidential appointments have led the Court to establish new or reject existing precedents.
Precedent is a specific past court decision, like Marbury v. Madison (1803). Stare decisis is the doctrine that tells courts to follow those precedents when new cases have similar facts. One is the ruling, the other is the rule about following rulings.
Judicial review is the Court's power to strike down laws and executive actions as unconstitutional, established in Marbury v. Madison. Stare decisis is the doctrine of following past decisions. Judicial review is a power; stare decisis is a constraint on how that power gets used over time.
The judiciary can't enforce its own rulings, so its authority depends on public confidence, an argument laid out in Federalist No. 78. Consistent, predictable rulings under stare decisis make the Court look like an institution of law rather than politics, which is what keeps its decisions respected.
Connect this key term to the AP exam workflow: review the course, practice questions, and check related study tools.
Review units, study guides, and course resources.
Check this vocabulary in multiple-choice context.
Apply key concepts in written AP responses.
Estimate the exam score you are working toward.
Review the highest-yield facts before practice.
Put the full course together before test day.