Articles Tagged with Judicial Legitimacy

For generations, the United States Supreme Court projected an image of institutional unity even when the Justices profoundly disagreed. While majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents revealed competing views of the Constitution, the Court itself rarely displayed internal friction in public. The 2026 Term has looked different.

Historically, disagreements belonged in the pages of the United States Reports, not during opinion announcements or through public exchanges between members of the Supreme Court.

There have always been strong personalities, competing judicial philosophies, and sharply divided votes. What makes the 2026 remarkable is not simply the number of 6 to 3 decisions or controversial constitutional questions. It is that Americans increasingly are seeing the disagreements themselves.

Stare decisis (“to stand by things decided”) sounds like a dry Latin phrase until the Supreme Court changes course in a way that affects constitutional rights, voting rules, criminal procedure, business regulation, privacy, speech, or the structure of government. Then the doctrine becomes something much larger than a law school definition. It becomes a question about institutional trust.

Stare decisis means courts generally stand by what has already been decided. Put simply, they don’t change “settled law” willy-nilly, on a whim, under political pressure, or in response to prevailing popular/public opinion or feelings.

It also does not mean every old case remains untouchable. It does not mean a wrong decision must remain law forever. It means the legal system has memory. Judges do not write on a blank slate every time a case reaches the courthouse. Prior decisions matter because people, legislatures, lawyers, businesses, prosecutors, defendants, courts, and public officials build their conduct around settled law.

Contact Information