On Super Precedents of the US Supreme Court
The modern Russian legal system functions and develops in conditions of active interaction with other national and international legal systems. This reflects the objective global trends of globalization, part of which are the processes of convergence and integration of legal systems. During these processes, an exchange of experience takes place between countries on legal development issues, which, in turn, often entails shifts in national legal systems, including changes in the role and significance of various sources of national law. In this regard, scientific research on the functioning of the judicial precedent is highly relevant for the Russian Federation, especially concerning countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, where the judicial precedent is considered to be the main source of law. At the same time, the use of general scientific methods of scientific knowledge (dialectical method, analysis, synthesis) in combination with specific legal methods (comparative legal method, historical legal method) makes it possible to comprehend legal phenomena that develop in various legal systems and to outline the directions of the corresponding discussion within the framework of Russian law. The topic of super precedents of the US Supreme Court, discussed in the American scientific community, is of particular interest here. One of the key elements of the US legal system is the stare decisis principle, which implies the obligation of courts to follow previously created precedents in resolving similar cases. The vertical aspect of stare decisis means that lower courts are bound by precedents created by higher courts, while horizontal stare decisis implies that courts are bound by their own decisions. The horizontal aspect of stare decisis includes the right of a court to deviate from its own precedent in the presence of appropriate circumstances and grounds. The US Supreme Court exercises this right quite regularly. At the same time, many American legal scholars point to the existence of such decisions of the Supreme Court that cannot be revised under any circumstances due to the fundamental importance of these decisions for American law and society. Such decisions are denoted by the concept “super precedent”. Scholars evaluate individual decisions of the Supreme Court on the subject of their possible superprecedent status. Signs of super precedence are highlighted, and attempts to classify super precedents are also suggested. Despite certain conventionality of the concept of a super precedent, the study of this issue seems to be relevant for Russian legal science. Such a study can be important to further deepen our understanding of the mechanisms of the judiciary.
Keywords
sources of law,
US legal system,
case law,
stare decisis,
US Supreme Court,
judicial precedent,
superprecedent,
judicial systemAuthors
| Petrov Alexei A. | Baikal State Univercity | petrov-a-irk@mail.ru |
Всего: 1
References
Бернам У. Правовая система США. М. : Новая юстиция, 2006. 1216 с.
Петрова. Е.А. Система источников современного американского права (теоретический и сравнительно-правовой аспекты) : дис.. канд. юрид. наук. СПб., 2004. 205 с.
Кросс Р. Прецедент в английском праве. М. : Юрид. лит., 1985. 239 с.
Марченко М.Н. Судебное правотворчество и судейское право : учеб. пособие. М. : Проспект, 2017. 448 с.
Practice Statement [1966] 3 All ER 77 // United Kingdom Parliament. URL: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199697/ldinfo/ld08judg/redbook/redbk45.htm (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Abraham H. The Judicial Process. An introductory Analysis of Courts of the United States, England and France. N.Y., 1996. 480 p.
West's encyclopedia of American law. Thomson-Gale, 2004. Vol. 9. 482 p.
Coney Barrett A. Stare Decisis and Due Process // University of Colorado Law Review. 2003. № 74. P. 1011-1074.
Bradford C. Following Dead Precedent: The Supreme Court's Ill-Advised Rejection of Anticipatory Overruling // Fordham Law Review. 1990. № 59. P. 39-90.
Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 405-411 (1932) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/285/393.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
The Federalist. № 78 // Library of Congress. URL: https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493470 (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Sinclair M. Precedent, Super-Precedent // George Mason Law Review. 2007. № 14. P. 363-411.
Cardozo B.N. The Nature of Judicial Process. New Haven, CT. ; London : Yale University Press, 1921. 188 p.
Соединенные Штаты Америки: Конституция и законодательные акты: Пер. с англ. / сост. В.И. Лафитский ; под ред. и со вступ. ст. О.А. Жидкова. М. : Прогресс, Универс, 1993. 768 с.
28 U.S.C. § 1254, 1257-1260 // Office of the Law Revision Council. URL: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title28/part4/chapter81&edition=prelim (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/5/137.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87 (1810) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/10/87.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Paulsen M. Can a Constitutional Amendment Overrule a Supreme Court Decision? Constitutional Commentary // University of St. Thomas Legal Studies Research Paper № 08-05. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1104529 (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Лафитский В.И. Основы конституционного строя США. М. : НОРМА, 1998. 272 с.
Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/490/477.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Kniffen M. Overruling Supreme Court Precedents: Anticipatory Actions By United States Court of Appeals // Fordham Law Review. 1982. № 51. P. 53-89.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/505/833.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/321/649.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/330/258.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Table of Supreme Court Decisions Overruled by Subsequent Decisions // Constitution Annotated. URL: https://constitution.congress.gov/resour ces/decisions-overruled (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Kozel R. Precedent and Reliance // Emory Law Journal. 2013. № 62. P. 1459-1507.
Eskridge W. Overruling Statutory Precedents // Georgetown Law Journal. 1988. № 76. P. 1361-1439.
Landes W., Posner R. Legal Precedent: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis // The Journal of Law and Economics. 1976. № 19. P. 249-307.
Richmond Medical Ctr v. Gilmore, 98-1930 (4th Cir. 2000) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1210300.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/530/914.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/347/483.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Amy Coney Barrett // Wikipedia. URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Coney Barrett A. Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement // Texas Law Review. 2012-2013. № 91. P. 1711-1737.
Гринько А., Жаринов К. Воля судейского сообщества как источник обязывающей силы прецедентного права США // Сравнительное конституционное обозрение. 2020. № 6. С. 113-140.
Gerhardt M. Super Precedent // Minnesota Law Review. 2006. № 26. P. 1204-1231.
Hall M. Bringing Down Brown: Super Precedents, Myths of Rediscovery, and the Retroactive Canonization of Brown v. Board of Education // Journal of Law and Policy. 2010. № 18. P. 655-700.
Wright R. Downgrading Superprecedents // West Virginia Law Review. 2019. № 122. P. 145-170.
Farber D. The Rule of Law and the Law of Precedents // Minnesota Law Review. 2006. № 90. P. 1173-1203.
Coney Barrett A., Nagle C. Congressional Originalism // University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2016. № 19. P. 1-44.
Starger C. Expanding Stare Decisis: The Role of Precedent in the Unfolding Dialectic of Brady v. Maryland // Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review. 2012. № 46. P. 77-162.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/14/304.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/301/619.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/79/457.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) // FindLaw. URL: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/367/643.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Amy Coney Barrett Senate Confirmation Hearing Day 2 Transcript // Rev Speech-to-Text Services. URL: https://www.rev.com/blog/tran-scripts/amy-coney-barrett-senate-confirmation-hearing-day-2-transcript (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Holmes O. Collected Legal Papers. N.Y. : Harcourt, Brace and Howe, 1920. 320 p.
Collins P., Ringhand L. Super-Precedents, Litmus Tests, and Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings. URL: http://www.psci.unt.edu/~pmcollins/ Collins%20Ringhand%20MPSA%202012.pdf (дата обращения: 20.06.2021).
Barnett R. It's a Bird, It's a Plane, No, It's Super Precedent: A Response to Farber and Gerhardt // Minnesota Law Review. 2006. № 90. P. 1232-1251.