Edward Elgar Publishing Constitutional Precedent in US Supreme Court Reasoning

Precedent is an important tool of judicial decision making and reasoning in common law systems such as the United States. Instead of having each court decide cases anew, the rule of precedent or stares decisis dictates that similar cases should be decided similarly. Adherence to precedent promotes several values, including stability, reliability, and uniformity, and it also serves to constrain judicial discretion. Yet while adherence to precedent is important, there are some cases where the United States Supreme Court does not follow it when it comes to constitutional reasoning. Over time the US Supreme Court under its different Chief Justices has approached rejection of its own precedent in different ways and at varying rates of reversal. This book examines the role of constitutional precedent in US Supreme Court reasoning. The author surveys the entire history of the US Supreme Court up until 2020, keying in on decisions regarding when it chose to overturn its own constitutional precedent and why. He explores how the US Supreme Court under its different Chief Justices has approached constitutional precedents and justified its reversal and quantifies which Courts have reversed the most constitutional precedents and why. Constitutional Precedent in US Supreme Court Reasoning is essential reading for law professors and students interested in precedent and its role in legal reasoning. Law libraries which will find this book of importance to their collections on legal reasoning and analysis. Review ‘Students and scholars alike will find a trove of materials on how the US Supreme Court has treated its own precedents over the past 230 years. Never has this been more important than today, as a newly empowered conservative majority is poised to reconsider the rulings of the past.’ -- Daniel Farber, University of California, Berkeley, US ‘The book clearly explains genesis and the role of legal precedent in the construction of American law. What is extremely interesting, that David Schulz in a very convenient way shows us how the precedents are set, how they are modified, and what is a role of judges, especially of chief justices, for the ideology and the content of the court’s decisions.’ -- Dalia Vasariene, Mykolas Romeris University, Lithuania and The Supreme Court of Lithuania About the Author David Schultz, Distinguished University Professor of Political Science, Legal Studies, and Environmental Studies, Hamline University, Saint Paul, Minnesota, and Professor of Law, University of Minnesota and Saint Thomas Schools of Law, MInneapolis, Minnesota, US