Stare decisis in AP US Government

Why a court with no army leans on its past rulings

Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary would be the weakest branch, and stare decisis is a big part of how that branch holds its ground. The term sits in Unit 2 (Interactions Among Branches of Government) at Topic 2.9, The Role of the Judicial Branch, where the question is how unelected judges keep public trust while still checking Congress and the president.

The claim is that precedent is the source of that trust. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary the weakest branch because it controls neither money nor force and has only judgment. He also wrote that judges should be "bound down by strict rules and precedents" to avoid arbitrary rulings.

That ties stare decisis back to judicial review in Topic 2.8. When a court strikes down a law, people accept the ruling more readily if it follows established reasoning. A Court that ruled however its current members preferred would look like a third political branch, and its checks on the other branches would carry less weight.

Nixon and Martin: precedent holding lower courts in line

The strongest evidence for stare decisis is how lower courts behave. A ruling from a higher court is binding precedent for the courts beneath it, so a federal district judge can't ignore what the Supreme Court has already decided.

Take United States v. Nixon (1974), where the Court held that executive privilege is not absolute and ordered President Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. Suppose a later president claims privilege to withhold evidence in a federal criminal case. The lower court would apply Nixon: privilege exists, but it gives way to the specific needs of a criminal trial. The judge reaches that answer by applying the earlier ruling, so the outcome doesn't depend on the judge's opinion of the president.

Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816) extends this to the states. The Court ruled that it has appellate jurisdiction over state court decisions involving federal law. Because of that, Supreme Court precedent on federal questions binds state judges too, which keeps federal law uniform across the country.

Where it bends: new justices, new precedents

Here's the limit. The Supreme Court is not bound by lower-court rulings, though it may consider their reasoning, and it can overrule its own past decisions. The course connects this to presidential appointments. When presidents replace justices, the Court's ideology shifts, and a shifted Court may set new precedents or overturn existing ones.

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and rejected "separate but equal" in public schools.
• In the New Deal era, the Court first struck down major New Deal laws. By the early 1940s, Franklin Roosevelt's appointees held a majority, and the Court upheld broad federal economic regulation, including crop quotas under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 in Wickard v. Filburn (1942).
• Citizens United v. FEC (2010) overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) on corporate spending in elections.
• Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) after three justices appointed by President Trump joined the Court.

So stare decisis is a strong presumption that a majority can set aside. Precedent carries great weight in most cases, and changes in the Court's membership can contribute to decisions to overturn it.

Spotting stare decisis in scenarios and case comparisons

A federal judge applying Nixon to a new executive privilege claim, or a dissenting justice objecting that the majority is throwing out long-settled law, are the kinds of scenarios multiple-choice questions use to show stare decisis. The first is stare decisis in action, and the second is a stare decisis objection. A question about a president's appointees changing the Court's direction is testing the limits half of the topic. The right answer usually names the trade-off: following precedent brings stability, and overturning it lets the law change.

In Concept Application (Question 1), a scenario might describe a lower court facing a case like Nixon. A strong answer explains that the court must follow the higher court's ruling and connects that consistency to judicial legitimacy. In SCOTUS Comparison (Question 3), you compare a summarized non-required Supreme Court case with a required case, addressing the relevant facts, holdings, reasoning, and political principles. Bring in precedent when it's relevant to that comparison, such as when one ruling builds on or departs from earlier decisions.

The usual mix-up is treating stare decisis and precedent as the same word. A precedent is a specific past ruling, like Plessy or Brown. Stare decisis is the doctrine telling courts to follow those rulings. Write that a court "followed precedent under stare decisis." A second error is confusing stare decisis with judicial review. Judicial review is the power to strike down laws, while stare decisis guides how courts use that power consistently over time.