Abstract
The role of time in constitutional precedent lies at the heart of judicial decision making. While there is a consensus on the importance of precedent, the modalities of its application remain a subject of intense debate within legal circles. At the core of this discourse lies a fundamental tension: the imperative to maintain fidelity to established precedent, thereby ensuring legal stability and predictability, versus the necessity to re-evaluate and potentially overturn precedent in response to evolving societal norms or innovative constitutional interpretations. This dichotomy presents a fundamental challenge to the Supreme Court, requiring a delicate balance between continuity and adaptability in constitutional jurisprudence. The Court’s approach to precedent is deeply intertwined with its historical consciousness, shaping the trajectory of constitutional interpretation. While stare decisis presumably ensures stability and continuity, the Court’s jurisprudence reveals a more contested relationship with time.1 Courts rely on precedent to construct legal authority, but they also overturn past decisions when they deem it necessary, raising fundamental questions about the temporal dimensions of constitutional law.2 The question is not merely whether precedent should be followed or cast off, but rather how time itself is conceived in constitutional adjudication.
Recommended Citation
Cisneros, Laura A.
(2026)
"Constitutional Time: The Temporal Dimension of Precedent in Consitutional Jurisprudence,"
University of Memphis Law Review: Vol. 55:
Iss.
4, Article 3.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.memphis.edu/um-law-review/vol55/iss4/3