According to the doctrine of stare decisis, what are judges required to follow?

The doctrine of stare decisis, which translates to "to stand by things decided," requires judges to follow precedents set by previous rulings from their own courts or higher courts within the same jurisdiction. This principle ensures consistency and predictability in the law, allowing individuals and institutions to have a clear understanding of legal standards and how they have been interpreted in earlier cases.

By adhering to precedents, judges maintain the integrity of the legal system and respect the judgments made in past cases. The established precedents serve as guidelines, influencing how current cases are evaluated and decided. This practice supports legal stability and reinforces the rule of law, as it establishes a framework that judges rely on when making their decisions.

In contrast, other options may not hold the same weight under the doctrine of stare decisis. For instance, rulings from other states, while they can be persuasive, are not binding unless adopted by the local jurisdiction. Similarly, opinions from legal scholars may offer valuable insights, but they do not constitute legal binding authority. Therefore, focusing on the precedents set by their own courts or higher courts is fundamentally what the doctrine requires judges to do.