{ "id": "RL33172", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL33172", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 310495, "date": "2005-11-29", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:26:19.699029", "title": "The Supreme Court's Overruling of Constitutional Precedent: An Overview", "summary": "As a general rule, the Supreme Court adheres to precedent, citing the doctrine of stare\ndecisis (\u201cto\nstand by a decision\u201d). The general rule of stare decisis is not an absolute rule,\nhowever, and the\nCourt recognizes the need on occasion to correct what are perceived as erroneous decisions or to\nadapt decisions to changed circumstances. In deciding whether to overrule precedent the Court takes\na variety of approaches and applies a number of different standards, many of them quite general and\nflexible in application. As a result, the law of stare decisis in constitutional decision making\ncan be\nconsidered amorphous and manipulable, and it is difficult to predict when the Court will rely on\n stare decisis and when it will depart from it. This report cites instances in which the Court\nhas\noverruled precedent as well as instances in which it has declined to do so, and sets forth the\nrationales that the Court has employed.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33172", "sha1": "40eab3132a57dbecc2bd3ae58f62700f27fa6b98", "filename": "files/20051129_RL33172_40eab3132a57dbecc2bd3ae58f62700f27fa6b98.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33172", "sha1": "599942f223ade144c76039645a888ccb243d5f1b", "filename": "files/20051129_RL33172_599942f223ade144c76039645a888ccb243d5f1b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions" ] }