Personal precedent is a judge’s presumptive adherence to her own previously expressed views of the law. This essay shows that personal precedent both does and should play a central role in Supreme Court practice. For example, personal precedent simultaneously underlies and cabins institutional precedent—as vividly illustrated in the now-pending abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. Further, the justices’ use of personal precedent is largely inevitable, as well as beneficial in many cases. Still, the justices should manage or reform their use of personal precedent, including by limiting its creation. Finally, and most fundamentally, personal precedent challenges conventional theories of legality. Though typically excluded from the law, personal precedent may actually be its building block.
Citation
Richard M. Re, Personal Precedent at the Supreme Court, 136 Harvard Law Review, 824–860 (2023).
More in This Category
We introduce the first ideology measure covering every non-Supreme-Court Article III judge on a single scale. The dataset comprises dynamic, interval...
More
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
More
Ian Ayres
We propose the creation of a Prosecutor Jury—a mechanism designed to balance the need to hold politicians accountable for their crimes, and the need...
More
There is one group that the court does not put into an identity straitjacket—those claiming religious exemptions.
More
Michael S. Knoll
Law students frequently find the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine confusing. That is no surprise given the sharp disagreement...
More
A federal grand jury in Florida indicted former President Donald Trump on June 8, 2023, on multiple criminal charges related to classified documents...
More
On Thursday, the Supreme Court subtly transformed the rights of religious workers in America. Under the guise of “clarifying” a nearly 50-year-old...
More
In a 6-3 ruling on Thursday, June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of race in college admissions at Harvard and the University of...
More
Looking for a federal law to be declared unconstitutional? Religion may well be your best bet -- and that's true regardless of how "real" your...
More
When federal judges are called on to adjudicate separation-of-powers disputes, they are not mere arbiters of the separation of powers. By resolving a...
More
Sonia Suter
Anti-abortion groups are looking for new ways to wage their battle against abortion rights, eyeing the potential implications of a 150-year-old law...
More
The past few years have witnessed a particular accusation leveled repeatedly and loudly at the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority: that...
More
Sonia Suter
The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency ruling on April 21, 2023, that allows continued access to the abortion pill mifepristone in states where...
More
Life tenure for the federal judiciary doesn’t promote judicial independence or the development of law as the Framers expected, and should be repealed...
More
Mark Moller
Federal courts control an outsize share of big-ticket corporate litigation. And that control rests, to a significant degree, on the Supreme Court’s...
More
A new study shows that lower court judges, and especially conservatives, are using senior status as a loophole to ensure their replacement by a like...
More
The issue of state separation of powers generally is not one that the federal courts have had much occasion to address. Recent issues have arisen...
More
Michael S. Knoll
Politics in the United States is ever more divided, stymying federal legislation. States have responded to this political polarization and...
More