How People Reason About Stare Decisis: The Role of Political Ideology

Past research suggests that people may exhibit directional motivated reasoning whereby they are less skeptical of information that supports their political views. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have elicited significant backlash, with some citing the fact that the decision overturned a longstanding legal precedent. Stare Decisis describes a core principle of the American legal system that courts are expected to adhere to past decisions, or precedent, when ruling on a case, unless there is an extraordinary reason(s) not to. To what extent, and by what process, does the public consider precedent in their reactions to such Court rulings? We investigate perceptions of precedent and the extent to which they are conditioned by the context of two real-world cases that broke with precedent: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022) and the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al. (2024). We find that ideological attitudes and attitudes toward precedent influence Americans’ attitudes toward upholding precedent, though their influence depends on the specific case being evaluated.