Stare decisis is the long-held doctrine underlying precedent or following and upholding existing laws. And if the laws are bad, well then, so are any new laws based on the bad precedent. Those of us as homeowner rights advocates are well aware of the harmful impact of stare decisis on homeowners. See Rejecting unjust HOA legal precedent (2010).
Stare decisis was a very big issue in today’s SCOTUS hearing on Roe v. Wade. Should this long held precedent be supported or not followed for reasons of “bad law” as argued by some. The principles governing stare decisis are, as should be expected, very complicated, so here’s the short of it as best I can determine.
Alexander Hamilton explained that “[t]o avoid arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be bound down by strict rules and precedents.” But it is not a “mechanical formula” or “not set in stone.” The issues dealt with “strong grounds” because “the Court’s willingness to overrule its past decisions is the only way to correct an erroneous constitutional interpretation.” Was the precedent wrong in the first place (as now being argued with Roe)? Whether “less harm will result from overruling the decision than from allowing it to stand?
Advocates must make the courts realize that most of the HOA statutes in every state must be overruled on constitutional grounds. Otherwise, homeowners will never be able to rise out of the muck and recapture true US citizenship.
HOA Constitutional Government 