Norm Violation by the Lower Courts in the Treatment of Supreme Court Precedent: A Research Framework

• NCJ Number: 183442
• Journal: Justice System Journal Volume: 21 Issue: 2 Dated: 2000 Pages: 117-142
• Author(s): Malia Reddick Ph.D.; Sara C. Benesh Ph.D.
• Editor(s): Susette Talarico
• Date Published: 2000
• Length: 26 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Earlier version of paper presented at the 1999 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.

Annotation

The U.S. Supreme Court rarely overrules its own decisions, overturning fewer than three precedents per term; for the most part, the Supreme Court acts instead to preserve the consistency and continuity of the law.

Abstract

There are times, however, when the Supreme Court formally alters precedent and, in so doing, affirms the decision of a lower court. That is, the Supreme Court upholds a lower court ruling that conflicts with or even ignores its past decisions. As subordinates in the judicial hierarchy, lower court judges are expected to abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court. According to the doctrine of stare decisis, the Supreme Court has a duty to follow its own precedents. The authors analyze the overruling decisions of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts that affirmed lower court rulings. Several issues are addressed in the analysis: (1) circumstances in which lower courts perceive a marked deviation from Supreme Court precedent is legally and politically safe; (2) evidence that lower courts attempt to anticipate the Supreme Court's reaction to an alteration in precedent; and (3) the role of ideology in lower court rulings. Unique instances in which lower courts appear to alter Supreme Court precedent are examined. Supreme Court cases of interest are listed in two appendixes. 24 references, 64 footnotes, 2 tables, and 1 figure