Abortion rights are being wrestled with at the Supreme Court this week as the historic arguments took off Wednesday.
The justices are looking at whether to uphold a Mississippi law banning abortion after 15 weeks, and overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
Mississippi also asks the Supreme Court to overrule the 1992 ruling, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirms Roe.
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority (three of those appointees by President Donald Trump, who pledged to appoint justices he said would oppose abortion rights), will hear the Latin phrase "stare decisis" brought up many times in oral arguments.
What is Stare Decisis?
As Cornell Law puts it, the legal term "stare decisis" is a phrase in Latin that translates as "to stand by things decided," indicating that a core foundation of law - precedent - will play a central role in the abortion case before the high court this week.
According to Cornell, courts cite the term "stare decisis" when an issue has already been brought before the court, and a ruling has already been issued. "Stare decisis," the Supreme Court says, “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”
So the principle says that once questions have been considered before the Supreme Court, and answered, those same questions must elicit the same responses each time they're brought before the courts, as Britannica defines it, in part.
This principle puts the stability of legal precedent front and center as the Mississippi law before the Supreme Court this week sets out to overrule 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey and 1972's Roe v. Wade decision.
As the New York Times highlights, Cornell Law pointed to a 1984 case, where then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist said, “Stare decisis is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”
As the Associated Press has pointed out before, respect for precedent, however, has its limits. Almost every court opinion raising the issue of abiding by precedents or getting rid of them invokes a line from a 1991 Supreme Court opinion: “Stare decisis is not an inexorable command.”
