Precedents

As discussed earlier, courts have to interpret the meaning of a law in order to enforce it. The judicial system tries to be fair and predictable so that everyone knows what is and isn't allowed. Think back to the Monopoly example. Suppose you roll the dice, and one falls on the floor. If this were a court case, the judge might rule that you should reroll that particular die. This ruling creates a precedent for future cases. If the same thing were to happen later in the game, you would expect the judge to follow the same rule again. This use of precedent helps ensure fairness and consistency.

In the legal system, courts have to decide which precedents are most appropriate for any particular case. Suppose you roll the dice, and one die lands on top of a book lying next to the game board. One player says that landing on the book is just like landing on the floor because the die is not on the game board; therefore, you should reroll that die. Another player says that the die landing on the book is different than landing on the floor because the book is still on the table, not the floor. According to the second player, you don't have to reroll the die. If this were a court case, the first player would be trying to convince the court to accept the precedent of rerolling the die. The second player would be trying to convince the court that the facts of the new case (the die landing on the book) are different enough from the original case (the die landing on the floor) that the court is not obligated to follow the original precedent. If the court agrees with the second player, it has distinguished the precedent. The court is saying that the facts of the new case aren't the same as the facts in the first case; therefore, the court isn't bound to follow the decision it made in the first case.

A court can also modify a precedent. Suppose the original case involved the die falling onto a carpeted floor. Now imagine a new case where the die falls onto a wood floor. The court might determine that a reroll applies when a die falls on carpet because it isn't a flat surface. But the court might also say that a reroll doesn't apply when a die falls on wood because the wood is a flat surface. Here, the court would be modifying the precedent by saying it only applies to floors that aren't flat and smooth. In very rare cases, a court may say the original precedent was wrong and should be overruled.

Technically, precedent only applies in common law cases when there is no specific regulation applied to the situation. When the court deals with a statute or regulation, the interpretation on the law is called statutory construction. But as with common law cases, once a court has conducted statutory construction (e.g., ruling that the dice must land on the game board), future courts will use the same statutory construction and follow the decision (precedent) established by the first court.

Binding vs. Non-Binding Precedents

Just as there is a hierarchy among types of law, with constitutional law superseding (overruling) statutory law and statutory law superseding administrative law, there is a hierarchy of courts that determines which precedents are binding and must be followed.

A trial court has to follow only the precedents of courts within its direct chain of command. For example, a Pennsylvania trial court must follow the precedents established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. But a Pennsylvania trial court does not have to follow the precedents of the Ohio Supreme Court or the New Jersey Supreme Court (just like an employee in the accounting department of a company usually doesn't have to take orders from a manager who supervises the assembly line).

As you learned in the textbook, the federal court system is divided into regions called circuits. For example, Pennsylvania is located in the Third Circuit, New York is located in the Second Circuit, and California is located in the Ninth Circuit. So when the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit creates a precedent, that precedent is binding (must be followed) by all courts located in the Third Circuit. Courts in other circuits (like New York or California) do not have to follow the Third Circuit precedent. However, a court in the Second Circuit can choose to follow the Third Circuit precedent as long as it doesn't conflict with any precedent already established in the Second Circuit. In other words, precedents in one circuit are often influential and adopted by other circuits as well. All state and federal courts must follow precedents created by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is why Supreme Court cases are considered so important.