Prior to May, 1969, the Illinois Legislature enacted a statute requiring operato

Question

Prior to May, 1969, the Illinois Legislature enacted a statute requiring operators of motorcycles and every passenger thereon to wear protective head gear and stated that the purpose of the legislation was the safeguarding of the person wearing the head gear. In May, 1969, the Supreme Court of Illinois determined that that legislation involved essentially matters of personal safety and was beyond the policed power of the legislature and was in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. As a result, the Illinois statute was declared unconstitutional.

A number of years later, the Illinois Legislature enacted legislation requiring drivers and front seat passengers operating motor vehicles in the State of Illinois to “buckle up” requiring mandatory use of seatbelts.

In a trial thereafter, a Circuit Court Judge in Illinois examined the seat belt laws legislative history to determine whether the intent of the legislation was to protect the seatbelt wearer, or the public. That Illinois Circuit Court Judge cited the 1969 decision by the Illinois Supreme Court and determined that the new Illinois legislation with respect to mandatory use of seatbelts was also unconstitutional. That trial court decision was appealed by the State and in October 1986, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the legislature could rationally determine that seatbelt use law would serve public safety and therefore did not violate due process, was not in violation of the 14th Amendment or any other right of privacy under the federal and state constitution and reversed the decision of the trial court finding that the Illinois state statute requiring mandatory use of seatbelts was in fact valid and constitutional.

Explain how the concept of “stare decisis” applies as it relates to this legislation and the various court decisions.

Explanation / Answer

STARE DECISIS

The principal that the standard decisions are to be followed by the courts is called Stare decisis which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent; the principle that a trial court is bound by appellate court verdicts (precedents) on a legal question which is presented in the lower court. It is a general adage that when a point has been established by decision, it forms an example which is not subsequently to be departed from. The doctrine works both horizontally and vertically. Horizontal stare decisis implies to a court adhering to its own standard. A court engages in vertical stare decisis when it applies standard from a higher court. Thus, stare decisis discourages contesting established precedents, and thus, cuts spending. A benefit of this inflexibility is that a court need not endlessly reassess the legal foundations of past decisions and accepted principles. Critics argue that the policy rarely permits flawed decisions to continue shaping the law and hampers the legal system’s ability to quickly adapt to change.

Although this policy does not prevent reassessment and, if required, overriding prior decisions. Stare decisis is not always relied upon, for at times the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hurriedly decided, or divergent to principle. On occasion, the Court decides not to apply the doctrine if a previous verdict is held impractical. Also, significant social transformations may also urge the Court to override precedent; but, any decision to overrule precedent is exercised warily.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.