Stare Decisis and Precedent in Brown v. Board of Education

In this case, the court applied 'stare decisis' but also made distinctions from previous precedents. 'Stare decisis' is the principle that courts should follow the precedents of similar past cases to maintain the coherence and consistency of the law. This means that the court should respect the authority of previous judgments and make consistent decisions on similar legal issues. 'Precedent' refers to specific cases or legal principles from previous judgments that can serve as legal foundations for subsequent cases.

In the case of Brown v. Board of Education, the court first reviewed earlier cases, particularly the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the 'separate but equal' principle. However, the court concluded that over time, with the development of public education, societal changes, and an increased recognition of the importance of education, the previous precedents were no longer applicable.

The court noted that education had become one of the most important functions of state and local governments over time. It also recognized that views on racial segregation had changed, and although black and white schools might be equal in tangible factors such as physical facilities, racial segregation deprived black children of equal educational opportunities. Therefore, the court found that the 'separate but equal' principle was no longer applicable in the realm of public education.

While the court made distinctions from previous precedents in the Brown case, it still adhered to 'stare decisis', respecting the coherence and consistency of the law. The court explicitly stated that its decision was based on an understanding of modern education and society in order to uphold the equal rights of citizens. This decision carried authority for subsequent cases and became a 'precedent', a legal guiding principle for similar cases.

Thus, although the court made distinctions from previous precedents in the Brown case, it still followed 'stare decisis' and established a new precedent to guide future similar cases.