Stare decisis – “to stand by things decided” – is the doctrine under which courts follow their own precedents, and precedents of superior courts. Proponents of stare decisis assert that it promotes predictability in the law, reduces revisiting settled issues, and increases reliance on judicial decisions, all while enhancing the legitimacy of the judicial branch. Critics of stare decisis assert that a court decision in error should not be followed blindly, and over-reliance on stare decisis can cause errors to become set in concrete. A handful of recent opinions suggest that some in the judiciary might be open to revisiting the contours of the doctrine of stare decisis. Should it be reevaluated? Does it matter whether the issue under consideration is statutory or constitutional? Does the time in history of the original decision matter? What is the future of this doctrine?

Prof. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown University Law Center
Hon. W. Neil Eggleston, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Mr. Kannon K. Shanmugam, Partner, Williams & Connolly LLP
Moderator: Hon. Amy Coney Barrett, United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit