When the Supreme Court decides how the law, and the Constitution, should be interpreted in a case, that interpretation becomes a precedent. Once that judicial precedent has been set, it's understood that the interpretation and its reasoning should be applied to similar cases in the future. So why might the Supreme Court reconsider its own precedent? And what happens when a precedent is modified, or overruled?

We talk to Nina Varsava, a law professor at University of Wisconsin, Madison who studies judicial precedent, and wrote the article, "Precedent on Precedent," and Rachel Rebouche, a law professor at Temple University who specializes in family law, health care law, and comparative family law, and has written about the potential impact of overturning Roe v Wade.

PS, want to score a cool new Civics 101 sticker and a $500 Airbnb gift card? Donate to the show! You'll support us and maybe you can go rent an idyllic cabin in Norway.

WIN A NEW CAR OR 25K IN CASH DURING NHPR'S SUMMER RAFFLE! GET YOUR TICKETS HERE.
CLICK HERE: Visit our website to see all of our episodes, donate to the podcast, sign up for our newsletter, get free educational materials, and more!
To see Civics 101 in book form, check out A User's Guide to Democracy: How America Works by Hannah McCarthy and Nick Capodice, featuring illustrations by Tom Toro.
Check out our other weekly NHPR podcast, Outside/In - we think you'll love it!

Precedent and the Supreme Court

Civics 101