A recurring theme in Supreme Court decisions that interpret federal statutes is that stare decisis should be especially strong. The rationale for this is that Congress can always modify statutes to supersede an interpretation that is problematic. Doing that for a constitutional precedent, by contrast, is more difficult. Thus, statutory stare decisis should be stronger. Stronger maybe, buy why strong? Run-of-the-mill common law courts do not have such a rule in theory. When state courts decide contract, tort, property, etc. cases, state legislatures are free to modify those decisional rules. No state court, though, says this means there is a “super-strong” rule for stare decisis in those cases. Perhaps in practice these precedents are treated that way–that would an interesting research subject–but I’m skeptical. Why then are federal statutory interpretations treated differently?
Read more detail on Recent Technology posts –