A doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.
A simple internet search will turn up various different ways to define stare decisis, but all will follow the same basic principle in its definition, a doctrine of using what courts have ruled before on a similar case and apply it to a similar case. Stare decisis can be argued in many different ways from criminal and civil law, arbitration, etc., but the focus here will be only in regards to interpreting the Constitution in the Federal Court System, and the role it should play in determining what law is.
As an Originalist, stare decisis has legitimate use in not only the Supreme Court but inferior courts as well. But I also contend stare decisis is a doctrine that has no place in certain regards when determining if a law or case before the court is Constitutional. Being an Originalist an inconsistent application must be avoided in order to remain consistent in interpreting the Constitution across all cases and scenarios that may arise. So in order to do this, situations on stare decisis prudent use need to be recognized, and they way I do this is two fold:
- What court is reviewing the case.
- On what aspect of the case to apply it.
The United States Federal Court system has three layers of authority, as established by Congress pursuant to Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, with all Judges and Justices nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate in accordance with Article II of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the Courts is derived from Article III of the Constitution, and delegated by Congress to inferior courts also from Article I Section 8.
- District Courts: Lowest level Federal Court of review. There are 94 District Courts in the United States2, with at least one court in each state and, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Three territories of the United States, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands also have district courts that hear federal cases.
- Appellate Courts: The Appellate Courts are superior to the District Courts, but inferior to the supreme Court. The 12 Appellate Courts for the United States made up from the 94 Districts of the lower District Courts3.
- Supreme Court: The Supreme Court is the highest Court in the Land, and whose decisions are final and cannot be appealed any further. It is made up of Nine Justices, and is the only court that will always Constitutionally posses all the powers of the Federal Courts as described by Article III.
The first thing that needs to be looked at is the case load of the courts. The Supreme Court of the United States has over 10,000 case requests annually4 (this is total, not specifically Constitutional challenges), which is an incredible amount of requests. This would equate to hearing over 27 cases a day, all 365 days of the year, well beyond the capacity of the Supreme Court itself to fulfill. A Writ of certiorari is typically granted to about 100 cases a year of all the cases appealed to the federal Courts. So in order to hear all the valid request, the lower courts have to be part of the process and also be a means to be the final spot for many of the challenges including those of the Constitutionality of a law.
The Inferior Courts
Since the Inferior Courts decisions are appealable to a higher court or courts, and that a superior court exists that can review the lower courts decision to verify that court properly applied precedent, stare decisis is reasonable to be used to render decisions on cases of similar circumstances. Also by having a superior court or courts it also allows another court to review a decision to verify the lower court was proper in its disregard of precedent in the rendering of its decision, and either confirm or deny that lower courts opinion. By using this combined method, this aids that only reasonably Constitutional challenges may get to the Supreme Court if needed for a final ruling, whether it is a new unique challenge or to resolve a conflict in the courts (multiple courts ruling differently on a similar situation). This will also prevent readily decided situations with no real premise or grounds of a Constitutional Challenge, and to not over burden the Supreme Court with meritless cases against the Constitution to the point of not being able to function and fulfill its obligation.
Finally, since the cases are handled in lower courts, if multiple instances or a potential challenges exist numerous courts exist to be able to initiate a challenge to various parties. By having this spread out method of entry, if a precedent is sound, it is reasonable to conclude most if not all the lower courts at the same level will have very similar opinions on the cases. But if a precedent is flawed, it can be expected for the courts to become in conflict, causing the case to be resolved at a more superior court. If all the courts in conflict are within one appellate court, that appellate court may resolve the case. But if conflict arises among different appellate courts, it shall fall to the Supreme Court to resolve.
This leads to the Supreme Court, where stare decisis should take on a different role.
Supreme Court, Principle or secondary arguments.
Since in order for a case to get to the Supreme Court it must be unique in its situation, the Inferior Courts were in conflict, or substantial Constitutional questions of precedent were raised by the lower courts, and the Supreme Court is the final Court of appeal and decision, stare decisis must play a different role in the final opinion. The Supreme Court needs to look at the case as if it is the first time it has examined the issue against the Constitution, and makes its opinion based on those merits only. Just as when the accused is granted a new trial, the case as a whole is retried on its merits only, and the prior trial outcome is irrelevant, this should also be the case for Constitutional questions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should hear the principle of the case only on its merits and the Constitution, precedent in these cases just as in a jury trial is irrelevant the case is a new in respects to the law.
Even with this, this does not preclude stare decisis from being relevant in the case, it is a matter of where. For the Principle of the case the principles should stand alone to the Constitution, while for secondary arguments in regards to law stare decisis is prudent provided they do not directly impact the principle argument.
For example, the fact that Supreme Court even hears Constitutional challenges stems from Marbury vs Madison5, of 1803 and not from a direct delegation of power in the Constitution. So in a case of “search and seizure”, it is proper to use stare decisis in the secondary role to acknowledge the Supreme Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case and make a decision, this is to avoid each case arguing does the court have the authority to make any decision at all. By using stare decisis in this manner allows the case to go forward and is prudent since it does not directly impact the principle argument of the case. But if the principle of the case where, “does the Supreme court have the authority to rule on the Constitutionality or laws and void them if they feel they are unconstitutional”, stare decisis is improper since the principle of the argument is that decision itself. This latter case must be heard a new, removed from the prior opinion of the court. This Constitutional question must stand itself against the Constitution and be answered pursuant only to the Constitution.
Bad Law makes Bad Law
The principles of the argument must always be explored from fresh eyes and taken for what they are in the Supreme Court, not what a previous court had ruled. By doing this it ensures the fidelity to the actual law of the Constitution, and not compound erroneous opinions. Basing opinion off of opinion may lead to the compounding of flawed rulings until will eventually lead to rulings that may be very similar to the most previous court opinion, but after time and numerous opinions will no longer be recognizable to original meaning of the Constitution provision in question. Only by the Supreme Court in each case that arises before it to have the Supreme Court to judge it for itself against the Constitution only and not how another court viewed it, can we maintain the fidelity of laws of the United States to as close to authority granted to it by the people. But if it were to base opinion off of previous opinion can only will clear a path to allow the Laws of the United States to stray from the authority granted by the people.
The people when they ratified the Constitution and the 27 Amendments intended to give up specific power to government, and those wishes must be honored. They only intended to grant certain powers or cede certain rights, and the only way to ensure that laws operate in those limits, is to reexamine what the power granting authority wished, not what another court thought. If we allow opinions to begat opinion instead of motivation over time it will no longer be what the granting power was meant power to be, but only what the court thinks it should be and this may be worlds different than its original purpose and meaning.
1: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stare%20decisis
2: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/DistrictCourts.aspx
3: http://www.uscourts.gov/FederalCourts/UnderstandingtheFederalCourts/CourtofAppeals.aspx
4: http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/justicecaseload.pdf
5: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0005_0137_ZS.html
No comments :
Post a Comment