Suppose a precedent seems to cut against your client. A lawyer has two main moves: show that the precedent does not reach these facts, or, in the court that made it, argue that it should be abandoned. Both depend on knowing the holding.
Key idea
To distinguish a precedent is to show that the material facts differ, so its holding does not apply; the precedent stays good law. To overrule a precedent is to end its authority; only the court that made it, or a higher court, can do so.
Why it works
Distinguishing is the everyday tool of the common law. Each case decides only what its facts present, so a new case with a different material fact may need a different answer. Overruling is rarer and more serious. Under stare decisis the Supreme Court asks whether there is a special justification to overrule. In recent cases, such as Janus v. AFSCME (2018), it has named factors including: the quality of the earlier reasoning; the workability of the rule it set; its consistency with related decisions; developments since it was decided (in law or in the understanding of facts); and reliance on it.
Worked example: Distinguishing
A precedent held a landlord liable when a tenant was hurt by a broken stair the landlord had been told about. Now a tenant is hurt by a stair that broke an hour before the fall, with no notice to the landlord. How might the landlord distinguish the precedent?
- Find the facts the earlier court relied on: the landlord knew about the broken stair and did nothing.
- Here the landlord had no notice and no time to fix it.
- Argue that notice was a material fact, so the earlier holding does not reach this case. The precedent is not wrong; it is different.
Answer: By showing a material fact (notice) differs.
Worked example: Other ways a precedent ends
In Ledbetter v. Goodyear (2007) the Court read a deadline in an employment discrimination statute narrowly. In 2009 Congress passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. What happened to the precedent?
- Ledbetter interpreted a statute, so Congress could change the statute.
- The new act changed the rule for when the deadline runs, displacing the Court's reading.
- Constitutional decisions can be changed this way only by amendment: the Eleventh Amendment (1795) answered Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), and the Twenty-sixth (1971) answered part of Oregon v. Mitchell (1970).
Answer: Congress superseded it by statute.
Common mistake
Thinking distinguishing a case means it was wrongly decided. Distinguishing leaves the precedent intact and says only that it does not reach these facts; overruling ends its authority. Another common slip: thinking a lower court can overrule a higher court's precedent. It can distinguish it, but only the higher court (or the legislature, for statutes) can undo it.
This is an educational course, not legal advice.