Stare decisis is the legal doctrine that courts follow prior judicial decisions (precedents) when deciding new cases with similar facts. It creates predictability and stability in the law so people and institutions can rely on consistent rules. On the AP CED this is LO 2.9.A / EK 2.9.A.1—the Supreme Court often follows precedent but can overturn it when the Court’s composition or reasoning changes (EK 2.9.A.2), e.g., Brown overturned Plessy on segregation; Dobbs overturned part of Roe. For the exam, be ready to explain how stare decisis promotes judicial restraint and when ideological shifts lead to rejecting precedents. Want a focused review? Check the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For broader unit review and 1,000+ practice problems, see (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Courts decide cases by applying law to facts, relying heavily on legal precedent (stare decisis). Judges read briefs, hear arguments, and interpret the Constitution, statutes, and prior rulings; then a majority opinion (and sometimes concurring/dissenting opinions) explains their reasoning. Precedent guides consistency—cases like Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee and landmark moment United States v. Nixon show how the Court asserts judicial review and applies prior law. But when the Court’s membership or legal views change, it can overturn precedent (e.g., shifts from Plessy to Brown or recent changes like Dobbs). For the AP exam, focus on LO 2.9.A: how stare decisis shapes decisions and how ideological shifts in appointments can create new holdings. Want a quick topic review? Check the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For unit review and lots of practice Qs, see Unit 2 (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

They follow precedent because of stare decisis—a rule that courts should rely on prior decisions when cases have similar facts. Stare decisis brings stability, predictability, and fairness: people and lower courts can rely on established rules, and the law develops coherently over time (LO 2.9.A; EK 2.9.A.1). That said, precedents can change if the Court thinks earlier decisions were wrong or social/political views shift; presidential appointments that change the Court’s ideology have led the Court to overturn or modify past precedents (EK 2.9.A.2—e.g., Brown overruling Plessy, or Dobbs altering Roe). On the AP exam you should be able to define stare decisis, explain its purpose, and give an example of precedent being kept or rejected (see Topic 2.9 study guide for review) (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For more unit review: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2 and practice questions: https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government.

When the Supreme Court overturns a prior decision it rejects an existing legal precedent (stare decisis) and establishes a new rule that lower courts must follow. That changes how the Constitution or federal law is interpreted—sometimes expanding or narrowing rights (e.g., Brown overturned Plessy; Dobbs overturned Roe). Overturning a precedent can shift policy instantly across the country, force new legislation, or let states set different rules. Congress can try to respond by passing laws within constitutional limits or by amending the Constitution (rare and difficult). Because of judicial review and lifetime tenure, ideological changes on the Court (from presidential appointments) often drive these reversals. This is exactly what LO 2.9.A expects you to understand about precedent and how the Court’s composition matters (see the Topic 2.9 study guide on Fiveable: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For extra practice, use Fiveable’s AP practice problems (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

When a president appoints justices, they can shift the Supreme Court’s ideological balance because justices decide cases for life and interpret the Constitution through their judicial philosophies (textualist, originalist, or living-constitution approaches). A new majority can uphold, narrow, or overturn precedents (stare decisis), which changes doctrine—e.g., shifts in Court composition have affected rulings on issues like abortion (Roe → Dobbs) and segregation (Plessy → Brown). The Senate Judiciary Committee and full Senate confirmation process matter because they filter who reaches the bench. For the AP exam, connect this to LO 2.9.A (role of precedent) and EK 2.9.A.2 (ideological changes from appointments can establish or reject precedents). Want a quick review? Check the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk), the Unit 2 overview (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2), and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Legal precedent means courts usually follow earlier court decisions when a new case has similar facts. The doctrine’s formal name is stare decisis—“let the decision stand.” It gives the law stability: lower courts follow higher-court rulings, and the Supreme Court’s past opinions guide future rulings (EK 2.9.A.1). But precedents aren’t permanent. If the Court’s membership shifts ideologically, justices can overturn or change precedent (EK 2.9.A.2)—think Brown overturning Plessy, or more recent shifts like Dobbs affecting Roe-related precedent. For the AP exam, you should be able to define stare decisis and explain how precedent affects judicial decision making (LO 2.9.A). Want targeted review? Check the Topic 2.9 study guide on Fiveable (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk) and practice questions at (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government) to see examples and sample FRQ connections.

Following precedent (stare decisis) means a court relies on earlier court decisions when the current case has similar facts or legal issues. It promotes stability and predictability: lower courts and litigants can expect consistent application of the law. Making new law happens when a court, especially the Supreme Court, departs from or overturns precedent and creates a new legal rule—for example, Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy’s “separate but equal.” Ideological shifts on the Court (presidential appointments) can lead to rejecting precedents (see EK 2.9.A.2). For the AP exam, LO 2.9.A expects you to explain stare decisis and how precedents can be upheld or overturned (use examples like Brown/Plessy, Roe/Dobbs). For more review, check the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). Want extra practice? Fiveable has study guides and 1,000+ practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government) to help you prep.

Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee (1816) established a key judicial precedent by confirming that the U.S. Supreme Court has appellate authority to review state-court decisions when they involve federal law or the Constitution. The Court held that federal interpretation of federal law is supreme under the Supremacy Clause, so state courts can’t finally resolve federal questions contrary to the Supreme Court’s rulings. That ruling created a lasting precedent: lower and state courts must follow Supreme Court interpretations of federal law (stare decisis). For AP purposes, this case shows how judicial review and precedent shape the national legal order (LO 2.9.A; EK 2.9.A.1). If you want a quick topic review, check the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

The conflict happened because the Supreme Court used judicial review to strike down key New Deal laws, saying many New Deal programs exceeded Congress’s power (especially under a narrow reading of the Commerce Clause). That put the Court at odds with President Roosevelt and the Democratic Congress that had passed the legislation to respond to the Great Depression. Ideology mattered: the Court’s composition was more conservative than the elected branches, so stare decisis didn’t protect New Deal precedent and the Court rejected those policies. Roosevelt’s response (the 1937 court-packing plan and pressure to appoint sympathetic justices) highlights how presidential appointments can change the Court’s ideology and thus its precedents. This New Deal conflict is the classic AP example of tensions among branches (see Topic 2.9 in the CED and the Fiveable study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For practice questions, check Fiveable’s practice page (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

United States v. Nixon (1974) set an important precedent: it confirmed that presidential executive privilege isn’t absolute and that the Supreme Court can review and reject blanket claims of privilege. The Court unanimously held Nixon had to turn over White House tapes subpoenaed in the Watergate investigation, saying separation of powers doesn’t shield the president from judicial process when fair administration of justice is at stake. For precedent (stare decisis), this case reinforced judicial review over the executive branch and established that no one—not even the president—is above the law. On the AP exam, be ready to state the facts, issue, holding, and reasoning for this case and explain how it limits executive power (LO 2.9.A). For a focused review, see the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk); for broader Unit 2 review see (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2) and practice Qs (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Start with a clear thesis: say whether precedent (stare decisis) usually stabilizes the Court or can be overturned when the Court’s composition or social views change (LO 2.9.A). Briefly define stare decisis and legal precedent (EK 2.9.A.1). Then use 2–3 concrete examples: one showing reliance on precedent (e.g., Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee or United States v. Nixon) and one showing overturning or rejection of precedent (e.g., Plessy → Brown, Roe → Dobbs). For each example, state the facts, the precedent at issue, the Court’s holding and reasoning, and connect it to ideological shifts from presidential appointments (EK 2.9.A.2). Conclude by explaining the policy/legitimacy trade-offs (predictability vs. adapting law). On the AP exam, this approach fits FRQ 3 (SCOTUS comparison) and FRQ 4 skills—use specific cases as evidence and explain reasoning. For review, see the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

Short answer: no—the Supreme Court doesn’t always have to follow stare decisis, but there’s a strong presumption that it will. Stare decisis means courts usually follow legal precedent to keep the law stable (EK 2.9.A.1). Still, the Court can and has rejected prior precedents when the prior decision’s reasoning is wrong, unworkable, or society/legal doctrine has changed (EK 2.9.A.2). Famous examples teachers expect you to know: Brown v. Board overturning Plessy, and more recently Dobbs overturning Roe. Whether the Court sticks to precedent often depends on justices’ philosophies (judicial restraint vs. activism) and the Court’s ideological makeup after appointments. For AP SCOTUS comparisons, be ready to explain holdings, reasoning, and how/why precedent was followed or overturned (see Topic 2.9 study guide: https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk). For extra practice, try problems at https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government.

When the Court departs from stare decisis and establishes a new precedent, several consequences follow. First, it changes legal rules that lower courts and future cases must follow, which can alter people's rights or government powers (examples in the CED: Brown overturning Plessy; Dobbs overturning Roe). Second, it can produce political backlash: Congress or states may respond with new laws, constitutional amendments (rare), or litigation, and the Court’s legitimacy can be questioned—especially if changes align with ideological shifts from presidential appointments. Third, policy and social effects can be widespread and immediate (e.g., civil rights, federal power under the Commerce Clause). For AP prep, know key terms—stare decisis, precedent, judicial review—and be able to cite examples and explain how ideological changes on the Court drive precedent changes (EK 2.9.A.1–A.2). For review, see the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk) and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).

The Supreme Court’s composition matters because justices’ ideologies and the Court’s majority determine willingness to apply or overturn precedent (stare decisis). If presidents appoint more justices who share a particular legal philosophy, the Court’s majority can reinterpret past rulings or decide that a precedent was wrongly decided—especially in close cases where one swing justice shifts the balance. Big shifts (e.g., Plessy → Brown or Roe → Dobbs) happened after ideological changes in the Court’s makeup. Lifetime tenure and Senate confirmation make appointments the main route for long-term change. On the AP exam, be ready to explain stare decisis, judicial review, and how presidential appointments plus Senate hearings affect precedent (LO 2.9.A, EK 2.9.A.1–2). For a targeted review see the Topic 2.9 study guide (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2/legitimacy-judicial-branch/study-guide/VJ8DnmbCug0vKC25idPk), the Unit 2 overview (https://library.fiveable.me/ap-us-government/unit-2), and practice questions (https://library.fiveable.me/practice/ap-us-government).