Why are U.S. courts usually reluctant to overturn earlier decisions?

U.S. courts are generally reluctant to overturn earlier decisions due to the principle of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "let the decision stand." This doctrine holds that once a court has answered a legal question, it must provide the same response when the same issue arises again.

The primary purpose of this principle is to maintain stability and predictability within the legal system. Adhering to precedent ensures that the law is applied consistently, preventing the uncertainty that would result if judicial rulings were frequently changed. However, the application of this principle involves a delicate balance: while a strict adherence to precedent can lead to rigidity and legal hairsplitting, excessive flexibility can undermine confidence in the law by making it appear unpredictable.1

While the Supreme Court does have the authority to depart from its own prior rulings, it generally does so only when there is a compelling reason, as the stability provided by precedent is considered a cornerstone of the rule of law.23