Fiveable
Fiveable

or

Log in

Find what you need to study


Light

Find what you need to study

2.9 Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch

9 min readfebruary 4, 2023

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Riya Patel

Riya Patel

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Riya Patel

Riya Patel

Introduction

The and personal beliefs of Supreme Court justices can play a role in whether they choose to follow or reject precedents, and changes in the composition of the Court through presidential appointments can lead to shifts in its interpretation of the law and the precedents it upholds. However, the principle of is still highly influential in the Court's decision-making, and changes to precedents usually occur gradually over time rather than as a result of a single decision.

Key Terms

  • : A legal decision or set of decisions made in earlier, similar cases that serves as a guide or reference for future cases.

  • : The legal principle that courts should follow precedents set by earlier, similar cases, in order to maintain and in the law.

  • : The act of a higher court overturning a previous legal decision made by a lower court.

  • : A set of beliefs, values, and principles that shape an individual's perspective and decision-making.

  • : The process by which the President of the United States nominates individuals to fill federal court vacancies, including those on the Supreme Court, which must be confirmed by the Senate.

  • : The quality of being consistent, or conforming to a set of rules or standards.

  • : The quality of being predictable, or capable of being forecast or expected.

Key Questions

  • What is the principle of and why is it important in the legal system?

  • How do courts balance the principle of with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues?

  • Can the Supreme Court previous decisions and set new precedents?

  • How does the of Supreme Court justices impact their decision-making with regards to precedents and ?

  • How do presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of ?

  • How do lower courts reconcile conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary?

  • How does the principle of differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions?

What is the principle of stare decisis and why is it important in the legal system?

is a Latin term that means "to stand by decided matters." In the legal system, it refers to the principle that courts should generally follow the decisions made in earlier, similar cases. The idea is that by following , the law will be applied consistently and predictably, which helps to promote stability, fairness, and the rule of law.

The principle of is important because it provides guidance to courts, litigants, and society on how legal issues will be decided in the future. It allows courts to build upon and refine previous decisions, and to avoid relitigating issues that have already been resolved. By following , courts also help to ensure that the law remains stable and predictable, even as society and legal issues evolve over time.

However, while is a fundamental principle in the legal system, it is not absolute. Courts have the power to previous decisions and establish new precedents when they find that the previous decisions are unjust or outdated, or when new legal issues arise that were not addressed in earlier cases.

How do courts balance the principle of stare decisis with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues?

Balancing the principle of with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues is a challenging task for courts. On the one hand, promotes stability and in the law by encouraging courts to follow precedents set by earlier cases. On the other hand, the law and society are constantly evolving, and there may be circumstances where a previous decision no longer accurately reflects the current state of the law or society's values and needs.

To balance these considerations, courts engage in a process of legal reasoning to determine whether to follow or depart from . This may involve considering the reasoning and facts of the previous decision, the broader legal and societal context in which the decision was made, and the potential impact of following or rejecting the .

In some cases, courts may distinguish the facts of the current case from the facts of the , and apply the only to the extent it is consistent with the current case. In other cases, courts may find that a previous decision is no longer viable due to changes in the law or society, and the in order to establish a new one.

Ultimately, the balance between the principle of and the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues is an ongoing process that is subject to ongoing evaluation and reevaluation by the courts.

Can the Supreme Court overrule previous decisions and set new precedents?

The Supreme Court has the power to previous decisions and set new precedents. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and its decisions serve as binding for all other courts in the country. As such, when the Supreme Court issues a ruling, it can effectively any previous decisions made by lower courts that are inconsistent with its ruling.

In practice, the Supreme Court exercises its power to previous decisions relatively rarely. This is because the principle of , which encourages courts to follow precedents set by earlier cases, is an important part of the legal system. The Supreme Court generally views its role as one of interpreting and refining the law, rather than upending it.

However, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has overturned previous decisions in order to reflect changes in the law or societal values. For example, in (1954), the Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine established by (1896), finding that separate educational facilities for African American and white students were inherently unequal.

How does the ideology of Supreme Court justices impact their decision-making with regards to precedents and stare decisis?

The of Supreme Court justices can play a significant role in their decision-making with regards to precedents and . refers to a justice's political, legal, or philosophical views and beliefs, and it can influence their interpretation of the law and their approach to deciding cases.

Justices who hold a more conservative may be more likely to follow and uphold existing precedents, viewing stability and in the law as important values. On the other hand, justices with a more liberal may be more likely to question existing precedents and consider the need to adapt the law to changing circumstances and societal values.

In some cases, a justice's may lead them to place more weight on certain factors when deciding whether to follow or depart from . For example, a justice who is more concerned with individual rights may be more likely to a that is seen as limiting those rights, while a justice who places more emphasis on states' rights may be more likely to uphold a that protects state autonomy.

It's important to note that is not the only factor that influences a justice's decision-making. Justices may also be influenced by the specific facts and legal arguments in a case, their understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, and the dynamics of the Court as an institution.

How do presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of stare decisis?

Presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court can significantly affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of . The President of the United States has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and changes in the composition of the Court can alter the balance of ideological and political perspectives on the Court.

When a new justice is appointed, they bring their own , legal training, and experiences to the Court, and this can influence the decisions they make. If several justices are appointed by the same President, or if the Court experiences a significant shift in its ideological makeup, this can alter the Court's overall approach to precedents and .

For example, if a President appoints justices who hold more conservative views, the Court may be more likely to follow and uphold existing precedents. On the other hand, if a President appoints justices who hold more liberal views, the Court may be more likely to question existing precedents and consider the need to adapt the law to changing circumstances and societal values.

In some cases, changes in the composition of the Court may lead to the reversal of previous decisions and the establishment of new precedents. This can happen when a majority of the justices on the Court no longer believe that a previous decision was correctly decided, or when they believe that the law or societal values have changed to the point where a previous decision is no longer viable.

How do lower courts reconcile conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary?

When lower courts face conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary, they must reconcile the conflicting precedents in order to reach a decision. This can be a complex process that requires a careful consideration of the legal principles and facts of the case at hand.

In general, lower courts must follow the precedents established by higher courts within their jurisdiction. For example, if a federal district court is faced with conflicting precedents from two different circuit courts of appeals, the district court must follow the established by the circuit court of appeals that has jurisdiction over the district court.

When lower courts are faced with conflicting precedents from the same level of the judiciary, they may attempt to distinguish the facts of the case at hand from the facts of the conflicting , or they may reconcile the conflicting precedents by considering their underlying legal principles.

In some cases, lower courts may be able to resolve conflicting precedents by relying on persuasive authority, such as decisions from other jurisdictions, or by referring the case to a higher court for resolution.

How does the principle of stare decisis differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions?

The principle of , or the idea that prior judicial decisions should be followed, can differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions.

In , such as those used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, the principle of is considered to be a cornerstone of the legal system. Judges in these systems are generally bound by the precedents established by higher courts, and they must follow those precedents unless they are overruled or distinguished by a higher court.

In some , such as those used in France, Germany, and Italy, the principle of is not as strongly emphasized. In these systems, courts may be more likely to re-examine the law and to change their approach based on new legal arguments or changing circumstances.

In some jurisdictions, the principle of may be subject to certain exceptions, such as where the law has changed or where the prior decision was based on an error of law or fact. In these cases, the court may be free to depart from prior and establish a new .

Key Terms to Review (11)

Brown v. Board of Education

: A landmark Supreme Court case in 1954 that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.

Civil law systems

: A legal system originating from Roman law, where laws are written into a collection or code and not determined by judges.

Common law systems

: A legal system based on precedent and customs, where the law is developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.

Consistency

: In politics, consistency refers to maintaining steady principles over time without frequent changes in stance or opinion.

Ideology

: An ideology is a set of beliefs, values, and ideas that shapes the way an individual or group such as a political party sees the world. It influences their understanding of social order and how it should be achieved.

Overrule

: To overrule means to reject or invalidate (a decision) by exercising higher authority. In terms of court decisions, it means one court declaring that a previous decision made by an equal or lower court was incorrect.

Plessy v. Ferguson

: This was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."

Precedent

: A precedent refers to a legal decision or ruling that serves as an authoritative example or guideline for future similar cases.

Predictability

: In the context of AP US Government, predictability refers to the ability to forecast or anticipate the outcome of a governmental action or decision based on established patterns, precedents, and rules.

Presidential Appointment

: A presidential appointment is when the President selects individuals to fill positions in federal government agencies, courts or diplomatic posts. These appointments often require Senate confirmation.

Stare decisis

: Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obliges courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case.

2.9 Legitimacy of the Judicial Branch

9 min readfebruary 4, 2023

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Riya Patel

Riya Patel

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Akhilesh Shivaramakrishnan

Riya Patel

Riya Patel

Introduction

The and personal beliefs of Supreme Court justices can play a role in whether they choose to follow or reject precedents, and changes in the composition of the Court through presidential appointments can lead to shifts in its interpretation of the law and the precedents it upholds. However, the principle of is still highly influential in the Court's decision-making, and changes to precedents usually occur gradually over time rather than as a result of a single decision.

Key Terms

  • : A legal decision or set of decisions made in earlier, similar cases that serves as a guide or reference for future cases.

  • : The legal principle that courts should follow precedents set by earlier, similar cases, in order to maintain and in the law.

  • : The act of a higher court overturning a previous legal decision made by a lower court.

  • : A set of beliefs, values, and principles that shape an individual's perspective and decision-making.

  • : The process by which the President of the United States nominates individuals to fill federal court vacancies, including those on the Supreme Court, which must be confirmed by the Senate.

  • : The quality of being consistent, or conforming to a set of rules or standards.

  • : The quality of being predictable, or capable of being forecast or expected.

Key Questions

  • What is the principle of and why is it important in the legal system?

  • How do courts balance the principle of with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues?

  • Can the Supreme Court previous decisions and set new precedents?

  • How does the of Supreme Court justices impact their decision-making with regards to precedents and ?

  • How do presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of ?

  • How do lower courts reconcile conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary?

  • How does the principle of differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions?

What is the principle of stare decisis and why is it important in the legal system?

is a Latin term that means "to stand by decided matters." In the legal system, it refers to the principle that courts should generally follow the decisions made in earlier, similar cases. The idea is that by following , the law will be applied consistently and predictably, which helps to promote stability, fairness, and the rule of law.

The principle of is important because it provides guidance to courts, litigants, and society on how legal issues will be decided in the future. It allows courts to build upon and refine previous decisions, and to avoid relitigating issues that have already been resolved. By following , courts also help to ensure that the law remains stable and predictable, even as society and legal issues evolve over time.

However, while is a fundamental principle in the legal system, it is not absolute. Courts have the power to previous decisions and establish new precedents when they find that the previous decisions are unjust or outdated, or when new legal issues arise that were not addressed in earlier cases.

How do courts balance the principle of stare decisis with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues?

Balancing the principle of with the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues is a challenging task for courts. On the one hand, promotes stability and in the law by encouraging courts to follow precedents set by earlier cases. On the other hand, the law and society are constantly evolving, and there may be circumstances where a previous decision no longer accurately reflects the current state of the law or society's values and needs.

To balance these considerations, courts engage in a process of legal reasoning to determine whether to follow or depart from . This may involve considering the reasoning and facts of the previous decision, the broader legal and societal context in which the decision was made, and the potential impact of following or rejecting the .

In some cases, courts may distinguish the facts of the current case from the facts of the , and apply the only to the extent it is consistent with the current case. In other cases, courts may find that a previous decision is no longer viable due to changes in the law or society, and the in order to establish a new one.

Ultimately, the balance between the principle of and the need to adapt to changing circumstances and new legal issues is an ongoing process that is subject to ongoing evaluation and reevaluation by the courts.

Can the Supreme Court overrule previous decisions and set new precedents?

The Supreme Court has the power to previous decisions and set new precedents. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States, and its decisions serve as binding for all other courts in the country. As such, when the Supreme Court issues a ruling, it can effectively any previous decisions made by lower courts that are inconsistent with its ruling.

In practice, the Supreme Court exercises its power to previous decisions relatively rarely. This is because the principle of , which encourages courts to follow precedents set by earlier cases, is an important part of the legal system. The Supreme Court generally views its role as one of interpreting and refining the law, rather than upending it.

However, there have been instances where the Supreme Court has overturned previous decisions in order to reflect changes in the law or societal values. For example, in (1954), the Supreme Court overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine established by (1896), finding that separate educational facilities for African American and white students were inherently unequal.

How does the ideology of Supreme Court justices impact their decision-making with regards to precedents and stare decisis?

The of Supreme Court justices can play a significant role in their decision-making with regards to precedents and . refers to a justice's political, legal, or philosophical views and beliefs, and it can influence their interpretation of the law and their approach to deciding cases.

Justices who hold a more conservative may be more likely to follow and uphold existing precedents, viewing stability and in the law as important values. On the other hand, justices with a more liberal may be more likely to question existing precedents and consider the need to adapt the law to changing circumstances and societal values.

In some cases, a justice's may lead them to place more weight on certain factors when deciding whether to follow or depart from . For example, a justice who is more concerned with individual rights may be more likely to a that is seen as limiting those rights, while a justice who places more emphasis on states' rights may be more likely to uphold a that protects state autonomy.

It's important to note that is not the only factor that influences a justice's decision-making. Justices may also be influenced by the specific facts and legal arguments in a case, their understanding of the role of the Supreme Court, and the dynamics of the Court as an institution.

How do presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of stare decisis?

Presidential appointments and changes in the composition of the Supreme Court can significantly affect the precedents it upholds and the principle of . The President of the United States has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices, and changes in the composition of the Court can alter the balance of ideological and political perspectives on the Court.

When a new justice is appointed, they bring their own , legal training, and experiences to the Court, and this can influence the decisions they make. If several justices are appointed by the same President, or if the Court experiences a significant shift in its ideological makeup, this can alter the Court's overall approach to precedents and .

For example, if a President appoints justices who hold more conservative views, the Court may be more likely to follow and uphold existing precedents. On the other hand, if a President appoints justices who hold more liberal views, the Court may be more likely to question existing precedents and consider the need to adapt the law to changing circumstances and societal values.

In some cases, changes in the composition of the Court may lead to the reversal of previous decisions and the establishment of new precedents. This can happen when a majority of the justices on the Court no longer believe that a previous decision was correctly decided, or when they believe that the law or societal values have changed to the point where a previous decision is no longer viable.

How do lower courts reconcile conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary?

When lower courts face conflicting precedents from different levels of the judiciary, they must reconcile the conflicting precedents in order to reach a decision. This can be a complex process that requires a careful consideration of the legal principles and facts of the case at hand.

In general, lower courts must follow the precedents established by higher courts within their jurisdiction. For example, if a federal district court is faced with conflicting precedents from two different circuit courts of appeals, the district court must follow the established by the circuit court of appeals that has jurisdiction over the district court.

When lower courts are faced with conflicting precedents from the same level of the judiciary, they may attempt to distinguish the facts of the case at hand from the facts of the conflicting , or they may reconcile the conflicting precedents by considering their underlying legal principles.

In some cases, lower courts may be able to resolve conflicting precedents by relying on persuasive authority, such as decisions from other jurisdictions, or by referring the case to a higher court for resolution.

How does the principle of stare decisis differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions?

The principle of , or the idea that prior judicial decisions should be followed, can differ across different legal systems and jurisdictions.

In , such as those used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, the principle of is considered to be a cornerstone of the legal system. Judges in these systems are generally bound by the precedents established by higher courts, and they must follow those precedents unless they are overruled or distinguished by a higher court.

In some , such as those used in France, Germany, and Italy, the principle of is not as strongly emphasized. In these systems, courts may be more likely to re-examine the law and to change their approach based on new legal arguments or changing circumstances.

In some jurisdictions, the principle of may be subject to certain exceptions, such as where the law has changed or where the prior decision was based on an error of law or fact. In these cases, the court may be free to depart from prior and establish a new .

Key Terms to Review (11)

Brown v. Board of Education

: A landmark Supreme Court case in 1954 that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional.

Civil law systems

: A legal system originating from Roman law, where laws are written into a collection or code and not determined by judges.

Common law systems

: A legal system based on precedent and customs, where the law is developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals.

Consistency

: In politics, consistency refers to maintaining steady principles over time without frequent changes in stance or opinion.

Ideology

: An ideology is a set of beliefs, values, and ideas that shapes the way an individual or group such as a political party sees the world. It influences their understanding of social order and how it should be achieved.

Overrule

: To overrule means to reject or invalidate (a decision) by exercising higher authority. In terms of court decisions, it means one court declaring that a previous decision made by an equal or lower court was incorrect.

Plessy v. Ferguson

: This was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal."

Precedent

: A precedent refers to a legal decision or ruling that serves as an authoritative example or guideline for future similar cases.

Predictability

: In the context of AP US Government, predictability refers to the ability to forecast or anticipate the outcome of a governmental action or decision based on established patterns, precedents, and rules.

Presidential Appointment

: A presidential appointment is when the President selects individuals to fill positions in federal government agencies, courts or diplomatic posts. These appointments often require Senate confirmation.

Stare decisis

: Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obliges courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case.


© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.


© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.