Super-Strong Stare Decisis

A recurring theme in Supreme Court decisions that interpret federal statutes is that stare decisis should be especially strong. The rationale for this is that Congress can always modify statutes to supersede an interpretation that is problematic. Doing that for a constitutional precedent, by contrast, is more difficult. Thus, statutory stare decisis should be stronger.

Stronger maybe, buy why strong? Run-of-the-mill common law courts do not have such a rule in theory. When state courts decide contract, tort, property, etc. cases, state legislatures are free to modify those decisional rules. No state court, though, says this means there is a “super-strong” rule for stare decisis in those cases. Perhaps in practice these precedents are treated that way–that would an interesting research subject–but I’m skeptical. Why then are federal statutory interpretations treated differently?



You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Scott Dodson says:

    Because (1) the constitutional separation-of-powers principle is stronger for the federal government than for state governments and (2) unlike state courts, federal courts abandoned run-of-the-mill common-law lawmaking after Erie?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Anti-spam image