Stare decisis means that the lower courts in the U.S. are bound by the precedents but the U.S Supreme Court should also follow its precedents. This means that when they handle a case that contains a similar question about the interpretation of the constitution or other statutory law, they must decide whether to strengthen the precedence and decide the case according to it or to overrule. The possibility of overruling must be examined trough the stare decisis criteria.
There are four established criteria. Firstly, they must evaluate whether the standard of scrutiny used in the previous case was the right one. The antiquity of the precedent is a factor as well. The cornerstone of a working legal system and society is that all individuals and legal entities can rely on the legal certainty. For that reason, the reliance interest at stake must be evaluated when considering overturning a case. Lastly the reasoning of the precedence is evaluated. If the U.S Court takes the view that the reasoning of the judges is not sufficient or the law has been interpreted and/or applied incorrectly in their legal evaluation, the precedence holds less meaning and can be overruled more easily.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (later Dobbs) the stare decisis doctrine has been discussed vastly as the case overturned Roe v Wade (later Roe) and Planned parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v Casey (later Casey). With firstly in the decision the U.S Court established that in Roe the standard of scrutiny was wrong. The U.S Court stated in the Opinion of the Court that there was no need to use strict scrutiny because a State’s regulation of abortion is not a sex-based classification and thus is not subject to the heightened scrutiny that applies to such classifications. Secondly, the antiquity of the precedent was discussed in an originalist viewpoint. The constitution should be interpreted in a way they think that the constitution was meant to be interpreted at the time. There was no reliance interest at stake and the reasoning was not a factor because the Court considered that the Court made an error when deciding Roe. As is seen here, the criteria are used but it can be said that the doctrine allows the judges to amend the criteria to fit their own justifications even if many of the legal scholars disagree with their decision.
One of the main differences between these two Courts is that cases regarding the interpretation of the Constitution is in the U.S. Courts jurisdiction. In Finland, we have preliminary control in the form of the Constitutional law Committee (perustuslakivaliokunta) which evaluates the relation to the Finnish constitution of the statute the legislators have prepared. Therefore, issues regarding Constitutional interpretation seldom rises in the Finnish Court.
In Finland, the legal ground for the precedents to be binding towards the Finnish Court itself is found in the Working Order of the Supreme Court and in the Supreme Court Act. In chapter 2 article 7 of the Supreme Court Act it is stated that the president of the Republic can refer the case to be handled in a plenary session if when deciding the case, it comes to light that the Court is deviating from its previously adopted standpoint in a certain matter. In chapter 2 article 24 of the Working order of the Supreme Court it is stated that the Court must inform the President of the Republic if the decision departs from a legal principle or interpretation of the law previously adopted by the Supreme Court. This means that formally the Finnish Court is bound by its former decisions and that there are certain aspects need to be evaluated when they “overrule” a precedent.
In the Finnish Court system, the stare decisis doctrine exist in a rather different form. There are no established criteria that the previous case must pass so that overruling could be possible. It evaluates case by case whether there is a reason to deviate from the established decision-line. The Finnish Court does this firstly by selection of the leaves of appeal and does not grant the leave if they see no reason to evaluate the legal question and amend its previous decision.
Most of the “overruling’s” stem from simply statutory changes which automatically annul the previous decisions regarding the subject. The Finnish Court evaluates is the precedent sufficiently formulated and justified and if the reasoning is no longer acceptable in the light of statutory and societal changes, the decision is easily overturned. This means that in Finnish court system the precedents cannot withstand ageing well due to everchanging societal needs and statutes and the resulting changes in the interpretation and evaluation of the statute and case at hand. There are a few viewpoints the Finnish Court considers when they decide how much weight they put on the precedent. A recent, unanimously decided case with justified and well written reasoning holds more meaning as a precedent.
So overall we can state the obvious, the main differences between the two systems stems from the simple fact that in the U.S. the legal system relies heavily on case law whereas in Finland the law is codified. The stare decisis doctrine has been established by the U.S. Court itself and is not codified, when in Finland we can find the doctrine of horizontal bindingess in the above-mentioned statutes. In Finland there is real difficulty in finding a judgement where it is mentioned that the decision overrules a previous one. The Finnish Court very rarely cites a precedent, even if they are overruling it. Most likely they will refer to the former judicial practice vaguely, but the reason for the overruling can be found elsewhere in the judgement. In the case KKO:1995:215 it is stated that as a general guideline; “Established precedence should not be changed without a weighty reason. On the other hand, even well-established precedence cannot prevent the Court from reassessing the basis of previous decisions”. In the U.S., the cases can be established for the sole reason to overrule a precedent. This is the case with Dobbs, in the Brief for Respondents it is stated that they know that the whole case is designed to overrule Roe and Casey, and this would lead to banning abortions.
Mississippi Too