• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Is the Supreme Court Obliged to Follow Its Own Precedents?

    Certain Supreme Court cases haunt the American people. When particular issues land on the Court’s docket, some Americans proclaim that, of course, the Court will rule this way because, don’t you know, there is a precedent for that. Free speech, free exercise, the Commerce Clause, and abortion—these are only a few of the issues that cause Americans on the left and the right to hold their breaths and wonder, “Will this be the case where the Court overturns (fill in the blank case).

    Is Americans’ concern with precedents misplaced? Is the Supreme Court obliged to follow its own precedents?

    No. The Supreme Court’s foremost duty is to uphold the commands of the Constitution. If the Court determines that one of its prior decisions was incorrect, it must overturn this precedent.

    Precedents should not, however, be dismissed lightly. As Alexander Hamilton explains in Federalist 78, it is “the proper and peculiar province” of the Court to address some of the weightiest constitutional questions. The answers it gives are very important to the stability of our law, a feature necessary for good government. Consequently, precedent holds some weight in determining the proper way to interpret the Constitution.

    Despite the importance of precedent, the Constitution remains the supreme law of the land, and the Court and its observers may fairly consider whether a particular decision was right or wrong. The Supreme Court may therefore revisit some of its doctrines and try to adjust its pronouncements to the commands of the Constitution.

    This question was reprinted from the new First Principles page at Heritage.org. For more answers to frequently asked questions, visit http://www.heritage.org/Initiatives/First-Principles/basics.


    Posted in Featured, First Principles [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Is the Supreme Court Obliged to Follow Its Own Precedents?

    1. buck says:

      Because of of the number of social misfits appointed to the supreme court by presidents that werent bright enough or had ulterior motives their is no longer a supreme court upholding the United States Constituttion . What we now have is a national kangaroo court .

    2. GeoInSD says:

      Wickard vs. Filburn seems to be a good candidate to be overturned to me. While I am not a court judge, that one seems to be based on a false premise whereby the government essentially is allowed to engage in central economic planning in the name of regulating interstate commerce.

      With the broad interpretation of Wickard vs. Filburn, the government can use "regulating interstate commerce" to force the individual to do just about anything it pleases.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.