Stare decisis (/ˈstɛərri dɪˈsaɪsɪs, ˈstɑːreɪ/) is a legal principle that judges are bound by precedent set by previous decisions. The words come from the formulation of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: «stick to decisions and do not disturb those who are not disturbed».  In a legal context, this means that courts should respect precedents and not interfere in regulated matters.  The principle can be divided into two components: Judges are bound by the law of binding precedents in England and Wales and other common law systems. This is a peculiarity of the English legal system. In Scotland and many countries around the world, particularly in continental Europe, civil law means that judges look at case law in the same way, but are not obliged to do so and are obliged to take account of case law in principle. The decisions of their fellow judges may be persuasive, but they are not binding. In the English legal system, judges do not necessarily have the right to make their own decisions about the development or interpretation of the law. They may be bound by a decision taken in a previous case. Two facts are crucial in determining whether a precedent is binding: precedents in relation to time can be used to establish trends and thus indicate the next logical step in the development of legal interpretation. If, for example, immigration has become increasingly restricted by law, the next court ruling on the issue may serve to restrict it even further. The existence of lost precedents (reasoned opinions not provided by conventional legal research sources) has been identified as a force that can distort the development of the law.  The doctrine of settled jurisprudence also influences the conception of judicial decisions.
In general, judicial decisions of common law courts provide a sufficient proportion of decidendi to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision based on previous case law and to facilitate the use of the decision as a precedent for future cases. On the other hand, in some civil law systems (notably in France), court decisions tend to be extremely short, as they refer only to relevant legislation and codal provisions, and do not go into the details of the ratio decidendi. This is the result of the legislative-positivist view that the court interprets only the intention of the legislature and that a detailed explanation is therefore not necessary. For this reason, ratio decidendi is carried out by jurists (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that would be provided in common law jurisdictions by the judges themselves. First, the Court is generally less willing to overturn a precedent that has existed for a long time and that has raised firm expectations. Correcting a relatively recent error that does not involve long-standing practice will be less disruptive and therefore less problematic and costly. The Court`s reluctance to override older precedents is also reinforced when a court has unanimously decided the previous case. Courts may take into account the writings of eminent jurists in treaties, reformulations of law and overviews of laws. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive varies considerably depending on factors such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument. Chief Justice John Roberts` statement in June Medical Services, LLC v.
Russo provides a clear statement about the strong design of stare decisis. In that case, the court upheld its 2016 decision in Whole Woman`s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down a similar Texas law that gives doctors performing abortions the right to admit patients to a nearby hospital. Roberts wrote, «The legal doctrine of stare decisis obliges us, in the absence of special circumstances, to treat similar cases on an equal footing.» Roberts provided the fifth vote to uphold the 2016 decision, even though he thought it was wrong.  The non-publication of opinions or unpublished opinions are court decisions that cannot be cited as precedent because the judges issuing the opinion consider that the cases set fewer precedents. Selective publishing is the legal process in which a judge or judge of a court decides whether or not to publish a decision in a journalist. «Unpublished» federal appeal decisions are published in the Federal Annex. Publication is the power of a court to make an order or notice previously published without publication. One of the most prominent critics of setting precedents on a case-by-case basis as being both overly reactive and unfairly retroactive was the philosopher Jeremy Bentham.