What does 'Stare Decisis' mean

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the US Supreme Court. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. 

Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".

BREAKING DOWN 'Stare Decisis'

The US common law system has a unified system of deciding legal matters from the principle of stare decisis and precedent. A past ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedent when overseeing an on-going case with similar circumstances.

What makes a precedent? A unique case with hardly any past reference material may become a precedent when the judge makes a ruling on it. Also, any precedent that has been overruled in a current case may be replaced by the new ruling used on the similar present case.

For example, let’s look at the on-going regulatory fight against insider trading in the securities industry. Insider trading is basically the misuse of material non-public information for financial gain. The insider can trade the information for his personal portfolio, or sell the information to an outsider for a cost. The precedent looked to by courts dealing with insider trading is the 1983 case of Dirks v. SEC. In this case, the US Supreme Court held that an insider is guilty if he directly or indirectly received material benefits from disclosing the information to someone who acts on it. In addition, exploiting confidential information exists when the information is gifted to a relative or friend. This decision became precedent and is upheld by courts dealing with financial crimes similar to this nature.

In the 2016 ruling of Salman v. United States, stare decisis was used by the Supreme Court to make a ruling on this case. Bassam Salman made an estimated $1.2 million from insider information that he received indirectly from his brother-in-law, Maher Kara, a Citigroup investment banker. While Salman’s counsel believed that he should only be convicted if he compensated his brother-in-law in cash or kind, the Supreme Court judge ruled that insiders do not have to get something in return for divulging company secrets. Stare decisis, the confidential information given to Salman was considered a gift, and adhering to Dirks v. SEC which makes it clear that fiduciary duty is breached when a tipper gives confidential information as a gift, Salman was guilty of insider trading.

Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their own previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system. For example, the Kansas state appellate courts will follow their own precedent, the Kansas Supreme Court precedent, and the US Supreme Court precedent. Kansas is not obligated to follow precedent from the appellate courts of other states, say California. However, when faced with a unique case, Kansas may refer to the precedent of California or any other state that has an established ruling as a guide in setting its own precedent. For example, in 2014, the 2nd US Circuit Court of appeals in New York overturned the insider trading conviction of two hedge fund managers, Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, stating that an insider can only be convicted if there was a real personal benefit gotten from the misappropriated information. When Bassam Salam appealed his 2013 conviction using the 2nd Circuit's ruling as precedent, the 9thUS Circuit of Appeals based in San-Francisco did not abide by the New York 2nd Circuit’s precedent which it was not obligated to uphold anyways. The Appeals Court upheld the conviction ruling on Salam.

In effect, all courts are bound to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court as this represents the highest court in the country. Therefore, decisions made by the highest court become binding precedent or obligatory stare decisis for the lower courts in the system. When the Supreme Court overturns a precedent made by courts below it in the legal hierarchy, the new ruling becomes stare decisis on similar court hearings. This means that if a case ruled in a Kansas court which has abided by a certain precedent for decades is taken to the US Supreme Court where the Kansas ruling gets overturned, the Court’s overrule replaces the former precedent, and Kansas courts would have to adapt to the new rule as precedent.

For example, when the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Salam v. United States, the top court stated that the 2nd Circuit’s ruling was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent set about by Dirks v. SEC, and the Appeal Court had, therefore,not adhered to the principle of stare decisis. If it had abound by the Supreme Court’s precedent, Newman and Chiasson would have probably been convicted.

  1. Tax Court

    Tax court is a specialized court of law that hears tax-related ...
  2. Appellate Courts

    The appellate courts hear and review appeals from legal cases ...
  3. First To File Rule

    The first to file rule states whoever is the first party to file ...
  4. Call Rule

    The call rule is a rule for trading markets that makes the next ...
  5. Business Judgment Rule

    Business Judgment Rule is a legal principle which grants directors ...
  6. Reasonableness Standard

    Reasonableness standard has several applications in finance that ...
Related Articles
  1. Insights

    Apple and Samsung Head to the Supreme Court Tomorrow (AAPL, SSNLF)

    Innovation or Protection? That's what will be decided on Tuesday in the U.S. Supreme Court when tech heavyweights Apple Inc (AAPL) and Samsung file their final arguments in a long-running patent ...
  2. Insights

    Brexit Derailed: High Court Says Brexit Requires Parliamentary Approval

    British Prime Minister Theresa May does not have the power to decide to go ahead with Brexit.
  3. Financial Advisor

    DOL's Fiduciary Rule Officially Shelved

    In a June 21st decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the DOL's fiduciary rule. The rule has been harshly scrutinized over the last two years.
  4. Insights

    UK Supreme Court Rules Brexit Needs Parliament's Approval

    The British Supreme Court by a majority of 8 to 3 ruled that Prime Minister Theresa May and her government cannot trigger Article 50 and begin the Brexit "divorce process" officially without ...
  5. Investing

    Big Pharma Faces 'Pay For Delay' Lawsuits

    Unless you follow the pharmaceutical and biotech sectors, it’s likely that you’ve never heard of pay to delay. Instead of planning to lose nearly all revenue once the drug goes off patent, the ...
  6. Investing

    Exxon/InterOil $2.5B Merger Put on Hold (XOM, IOC)

    A Canadian appellate court has put the $2.5 billion Exxon-InterOil merger on hold amid claims the deal is unfair to shareholders.
  7. Trading

    Shopify Sell-Off Hits Key Support Levels

    Shopify shares continued to move lower following a bearish Supreme Court ruling earlier this month, but traders will be watching these levels.
  8. Investing

    Court May Let Sex Offenders Back on Social Media

    The Supreme Court is poised to strike down a N.C. law that banned offenders from social media.
  9. Investing

    Will Supreme Court Flip Apple's $120M Patent Verdict vs. Samsung?

    It may take only a swipe of a finger to unlock your phone, but that feature can cost Samsung as much as $120 million.
  10. Investing

    Supreme Court Tax Ruling Won't Curb Amazon Dominance

    The Supreme Court ruling on sales tax for online retailers shouldn't negatively impact Amazon.
  1. How legally binding is a letter of intent?

    Find out when a letter of intent (LOI) is binding and non-binding. Understand the role of drafting language, and when an ... Read Answer >>
  2. What is the Rule of 72?

    The "Rule of 72" determines roughly how long an investment will take to double, given a fixed annual rate of interest. It ... Read Answer >>
  3. If I reject the tender offer for acquisition of the stock that I own in a company ...

    Since the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, a significant number of public companies have chosen to go private. The reasons ... Read Answer >>
Trading Center