title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Methane (CH), water (HO), ammonia (NH), and hydrogen (H) were all sealed together inside a sterile 5-liter glass flask connected to a 500 ml flask half-full of water. The water in the smaller flask was heated to induce evaporation, and the water vapor was allowed to enter the larger flask. A continuous electrical spark was discharged between a pair of electrodes in the larger flask. The spark passed through the mixture of gases and water vapor, simulating lightning in the hypothesized primordial atmosphere of the earth. Then the apparatus was cooled so that the water condensed and trickled into a U-shaped trap at the bottom.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: After a day, the solution that had collected at the trap was pink, and after a week of continuous operation the solution was a deep red and turbid. The boiling flask was then removed, and mercuric chloride was added to prevent microbial contamination. The reaction was stopped by adding barium hydroxide and sulfuric acid, and evaporated to remove impurities. Using paper chromatography, Miller identified five amino acids present in the solution: glycine, α-alanine and β-alanine were positively identified, while aspartic acid and α-aminobutyric acid (AABA) were less certain, due to the spots being faint.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In a 1996 interview, Stanley Miller recollected his lifelong experiments following his original work and stated: "Just turning on the spark in a basic pre-biotic experiment will yield 11 out of 20 amino acids."


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: The original experiment remained in 2017 under the care of Miller and Urey's former student Jeffrey Bada, a professor at the UCSD, Scripps Institution of Oceanography. , the apparatus used to conduct the experiment was on display at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: One-step reactions among the mixture components can produce hydrogen cyanide (HCN), formaldehyde (CHO), and other active intermediate compounds (acetylene, cyanoacetylene, etc.):


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: The formaldehyde, ammonia, and HCN then react by Strecker synthesis to form amino acids and other biomolecules:


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Furthermore, water and formaldehyde can react, via Butlerov's reaction to produce various sugars like ribose.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: The experiments showed that simple organic compounds of building blocks of proteins and other macromolecules can be formed from gases with the addition of energy.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: This experiment inspired many others. In 1961, Joan Oró found that the nucleotide base adenine could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in a water solution. His experiment produced a large amount of adenine, the molecules of which were formed from 5 molecules of HCN.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA nucleobases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: There also had been similar electric discharge experiments related to the origin of life contemporaneous with Miller–Urey. An article in "The New York Times" (March 8, 1953:E9), titled "Looking Back Two Billion Years" describes the work of Wollman (William) M. MacNevin at Ohio State University, before the Miller "Science" paper was published in May 1953. MacNevin was passing 100,000 volt sparks through methane and water vapor and produced "resinous solids" that were "too complex for analysis." The article describes other early earth experiments being done by MacNevin. It is not clear if he ever published any of these results in the primary scientific literature.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: K. A. Wilde submitted a paper to "Science" on December 15, 1952, before Miller submitted his paper to the same journal on February 10, 1953. Wilde's paper was published on July 10, 1953. Wilde used voltages up to only 600 V on a binary mixture of carbon dioxide (CO) and water in a flow system. He observed only small amounts of carbon dioxide reduction to carbon monoxide, and no other significant reduction products or newly formed carbon compounds.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Other researchers were studying UV-photolysis of water vapor with carbon monoxide. They have found that various alcohols, aldehydes and organic acids were synthesized in reaction mixture.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: More recent experiments by chemists Jeffrey Bada, one of Miller's graduate students, and Jim Cleaves at Scripps Institution of Oceanography of the University of California, San Diego were similar to those performed by Miller. However, Bada noted that in current models of early Earth conditions, carbon dioxide and nitrogen (N) create nitrites, which destroy amino acids as fast as they form. When Bada performed the Miller-type experiment with the addition of iron and carbonate minerals, the products were rich in amino acids. This suggests the origin of significant amounts of amino acids may have occurred on Earth even with an atmosphere containing carbon dioxide and nitrogen.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have contained fewer of the reducing molecules than was thought at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide (HS), and sulfur dioxide (SO) into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. The experiment created a mixture that was racemic (containing both L and D enantiomers) and experiments since have shown that "in the lab the two versions are equally likely to appear"; however, in nature, L amino acids dominate. Later experiments have confirmed disproportionate amounts of L or D oriented enantiomers are possible.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Originally it was thought that the primitive secondary atmosphere contained mostly ammonia and methane. However, it is likely that most of the atmospheric carbon was CO, with perhaps some CO and the nitrogen mostly N. In practice gas mixtures containing CO, CO, N, etc. give much the same products as those containing CH and NH so long as there is no O. The hydrogen atoms come mostly from water vapor. In fact, in order to generate aromatic amino acids under primitive Earth conditions it is necessary to use less hydrogen-rich gaseous mixtures. Most of the natural amino acids, hydroxyacids, purines, pyrimidines, and sugars have been made in variants of the Miller experiment.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: More recent results may question these conclusions. The University of Waterloo and University of Colorado conducted simulations in 2005 that indicated that the early atmosphere of Earth could have contained up to 40 percent hydrogen—implying a much more hospitable environment for the formation of prebiotic organic molecules. The escape of hydrogen from Earth's atmosphere into space may have occurred at only one percent of the rate previously believed based on revised estimates of the upper atmosphere's temperature. One of the authors, Owen Toon notes: "In this new scenario, organics can be produced efficiently in the early atmosphere, leading us back to the organic-rich soup-in-the-ocean concept... I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again." Outgassing calculations using a chondritic model for the early Earth complement the Waterloo/Colorado results in re-establishing the importance of the Miller–Urey experiment.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In contrast to the general notion of early Earth's reducing atmosphere, researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York reported the possibility of oxygen available around 4.3 billion years ago. Their study reported in 2011 on the assessment of Hadean zircons from the Earth's interior (magma) indicated the presence of oxygen traces similar to modern-day lavas. This study suggests that oxygen could have been released in the earth's atmosphere earlier than generally believed.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In November 2020, a team of international scientists reported their study on oxidation of the magma around 4.5 billion years ago suggesting that the original atmosphere of the Earth contained little amount of oxygen and no methane or ammonia as presumed in the Miller–Urey experiment. CO was likely the most abundant component, with nitrogen and water as additional constituents. However, methane and ammonia could have appeared a little later as the atmosphere became more reducing. These gases being unstable were gradually destroyed by solar radiation (photolysis) and lasted about ten million years before they were eventually replaced by hydrogen and CO.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Conditions similar to those of the Miller–Urey experiments are present in other regions of the Solar System, often substituting ultraviolet light for lightning as the energy source for chemical reactions. The Murchison meteorite that fell near Murchison, Victoria, Australia in 1969 was found to contain many different amino acid types. Comets and other icy outer-solar-system bodies are thought to contain large amounts of complex carbon compounds (such as tholins) formed by these processes, darkening surfaces of these bodies. The early Earth was bombarded heavily by comets, possibly providing a large supply of complex organic molecules along with the water and other volatiles they contributed. This has been used to infer an origin of life outside of Earth: the panspermia hypothesis.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In recent years, studies have been made of the amino acid composition of the products of "old" areas in "old" genes, defined as those that are found to be common to organisms from several widely separated species, assumed to share only the last universal ancestor (LUA) of all extant species. These studies found that the products of these areas are enriched in those amino acids that are also most readily produced in the Miller–Urey experiment. This suggests that the original genetic code was based on a smaller number of amino acids – only those available in prebiotic nature – than the current one.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Jeffrey Bada, himself Miller's student, inherited the original equipment from the experiment when Miller died in 2007. Based on sealed vials from the original experiment, scientists have been able to show that although successful, Miller was never able to find out, with the equipment available to him, the full extent of the experiment's success. Later researchers have been able to isolate even more different amino acids, 25 altogether. Bada has estimated that more accurate measurements could easily bring out 30 or 40 more amino acids in very low concentrations, but the researchers have since discontinued the testing. Miller's experiment was therefore a remarkable success at synthesizing complex organic molecules from simpler chemicals, considering that all known life uses just 20 different amino acids.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In 2008, a group of scientists examined 11 vials left over from Miller's experiments of the early 1950s. In addition to the classic experiment, reminiscent of Charles Darwin's envisioned "warm little pond", Miller had also performed more experiments, including one with conditions similar to those of volcanic eruptions. This experiment had a nozzle spraying a jet of steam at the spark discharge. By using high-performance liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry, the group found more organic molecules than Miller had. They found that the volcano-like experiment had produced the most organic molecules, 22 amino acids, 5 amines and many hydroxylated molecules, which could have been formed by hydroxyl radicals produced by the electrified steam. The group suggested that volcanic island systems became rich in organic molecules in this way, and that the presence of carbonyl sulfide there could have helped these molecules form peptides.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: The main problem of theories based around amino acids is the difficulty in obtaining spontaneous formation of peptides. Since John Desmond Bernal's suggestion that clay surfaces could have played a role in abiogenesis, scientific efforts have been dedicated to investigating clay-mediated peptide bond formation, with limited success. Peptides formed remained over-protected and shown no evidence of inheritance or metabolism. In December 2017 a theoretical model developed by Valentina Erastova and collaborators suggested that peptides could form at the interlayers of layered double hydroxides such as green rust in early earth conditions. According to the model, drying of the intercalated layered material should provide energy and co-alignment required for peptide bond formation in a ribosome-like fashion, while re-wetting should allow mobilising the newly formed peptides and repopulate the interlayer with new amino acids. This mechanism is expected to lead to the formation of 12+ amino acid-long peptides within 15-20 washes. Researches also observed slightly different adsorption preferences for different amino acids, and postulated that, if coupled to a diluted solution of mixed amino acids, such preferences could lead to sequencing.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: In October 2018, researchers at McMaster University on behalf of the Origins Institute announced the development of a new technology, called a "Planet Simulator", to help study the origin of life on planet Earth and beyond.


title: Miller–Urey experiment

text: Below is a table of amino acids produced and identified in the "classic" 1952 experiment, as published by Miller in 1953, the 2008 re-analysis of vials from the volcanic spark discharge experiment, and the 2010 re-analysis of vials from the HS-rich spark discharge experiment.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol, sold under the brand name Coreg among others, is a medication used to treat high blood pressure, congestive heart failure (CHF), and left ventricular dysfunction in people who are otherwise stable. For high blood pressure, it is generally a second-line treatment. It is taken by mouth.


title: Carvedilol

text: Common side effects include dizziness, tiredness, joint pain, low blood pressure, nausea, and shortness of breath. Severe side effects may include bronchospasm. Safety during pregnancy or breastfeeding is unclear. Use is not recommended in those with liver problems. Carvedilol is a nonselective beta blocker and alpha-1 blocker. How it improves outcomes is not entirely clear but may involve dilation of blood vessels.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol was patented in 1978 and approved for medical use in the United States in 1995. It is on the World Health Organization's List of Essential Medicines. It is available as a generic medication. In 2020, it was the 26th most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 23million prescriptions.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol is indicated in the management of congestive heart failure (CHF), commonly as an adjunct to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ACE inhibitors) and diuretics. It has been clinically shown to reduce mortality and hospitalizations in people with CHF. The mechanism behind its positive effect when used long-term in clinically stable CHF patients is not fully understood, but is thought to contribute to remodeling of the heart, improving upon its structure and function.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol reduces the risk of death, hospitalizations, and recurring heart attacks for patients with reduced heart function following a heart attack. Carvedilol has also been proven to reduce death and hospitalization in patients with severe heart failure.


title: Carvedilol

text: In practice, carvedilol has been used in the treatment of uncomplicated hypertension, yet studies suggest it has relatively ineffective blood pressure-lowering effects when compared with other blood pressure-lowering therapies or other beta blockers.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol should not be used in patients with bronchial asthma or bronchospastic conditions due to increased risk of bronchoconstriction. It should not be used in people with second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, sick sinus syndrome, severe bradycardia (unless a permanent pacemaker is in place), or a decompensated heart condition. People with severe hepatic impairment should use carvedilol with caution.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol is not recommended for people with uncontrolled bronchospastic disease (e.g. current asthma symptoms) as it can block receptors that assist in opening the airways.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol may mask symptoms of low blood sugar, resulting in hypoglycemia unawareness. This is termed beta blocker induced hypoglycemia unawareness.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol is both a non-selective β-adrenergic receptor antagonist (β, β) and an α-adrenergic receptor antagonist (α). The S(–) enantiomer accounts for the beta-blocking activity whereas the S(–) and R(+) enantiomers have alpha-blocking activity. The affinity (K) of carvedilol for the β-adrenergic receptors is 0.32 nM for the human β-adrenergic receptor and 0.13 to 0.40 nM for the β-adrenergic receptor.


title: Carvedilol

text: Using rat proteins, carvedilol has shown affinity for a variety of targets including the β-adrenergic receptor (K = 0.24–0.43 nM), β-adrenergic receptor (K = 0.19–0.25 nM), α-adrenergic receptor (K = 3.4 nM), α-adrenergic receptor (K = 2,168 nM), 5-HT receptor (K = 3.4 nM), 5-HT receptor (K = 207 nM), H receptor (K = 3,034 nM), D receptor (K = 213 nM), μ-opioid receptor (K = 2,700 nM), veratridine site of voltage-gated sodium channels (IC = 1,260 nM), serotonin transporter (K = 528 nM), norepinephrine transporter (K = 2,406 nM), and dopamine transporter (K = 627 nM). It is an antagonist of the human 5-HT receptors with moderate affinity (K = 547 nM), although it is unclear if this is significant for its pharmacological actions given its much stronger activity at adrenergic receptors.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol reversibly binds to β-adrenergic receptors on cardiac myocytes. Inhibition of these receptors prevents a response to the sympathetic nervous system, leading to decreased heart rate and contractility. This action is beneficial in heart failure patients where the sympathetic nervous system is activated as a compensatory mechanism. Carvedilol blockade of α-adrenergic receptors causes vasodilation of blood vessels. This inhibition leads to decreased peripheral vascular resistance and an antihypertensive effect. There is no reflex tachycardia response due to carvedilol blockade of β-adrenergic receptors on the heart.


title: Carvedilol

text: Carvedilol is about 25% to 35% bioavailable following oral administration due to extensive first-pass metabolism. Absorption is slowed when administered with food, however, it does not show a significant difference in bioavailability. Taking carvedilol with food decreases the risk of orthostatic hypotension.


title: Carvedilol

text: The majority of carvedilol is bound to plasma proteins (98%), mainly to albumin. Carvedilol is a basic, hydrophobic compound with a steady-state volume of distribution of 115 L. Plasma clearance ranges from 500 to 700 mL/min. Carvedilol is lipophilic and easily crosses the blood–brain barrier in animals, and hence is not thought to be peripherally selective.


title: Carvedilol

text: The compound is metabolized by liver enzymes, CYP2D6 and CYP2C9 via aromatic ring oxidation and glucuronidation, then further conjugated by glucuronidation and sulfation. The three active metabolites exhibit only one-tenth of the vasodilating effect of the parent compound. However, the 4'-hydroxyphenyl metabolite is about 13-fold more potent in β-blockade than the parent.


title: Carvedilol

text: The mean elimination half-life of carvedilol following oral administration ranges from 7 to 10 hours. The pharmaceutical product is a mix of two enantiomorphs, "R"(+)-carvedilol and "S"(–)-carvedilol, with differing metabolic properties. R(+)-Carvedilol undergoes preferential selection for metabolism, which results in a fractional half-life of about 5 to 9 hours, compared with 7 to 11 hours for the S(-)-carvedilol fraction.


title: Precedent

text: A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance).


title: Precedent

text: Case law, in common-law jurisdictions, is the set of decisions of adjudicatory tribunals or other rulings that can be cited as precedent. In most countries, including most European countries, the term is applied to any set of rulings on law, which is guided by previous rulings, for example, previous decisions of a government agency. Essential to the development of case law is the publication and indexing of decisions for use by lawyers, courts, and the general public, in the form of law reports. While all decisions are precedent (though at varying levels of authority as discussed throughout this article), some become "leading cases" or "landmark decisions" that are cited especially often.


title: Precedent

text: In contrast, civil law systems adhere to a legal positivism, where past decisions do not usually have the precedential, binding effect that they have in common law decision-making; the judicial review practiced by constitutional courts can be regarded as a notable exception.


title: Precedent

text: "Stare decisis" () is a legal principle by which judges are obligated to respect the precedent established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim "Stare decisis et non quieta movere": "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed". In a legal context, this means that courts should abide by precedent and not disturb settled matters. The principle can be divided into two components:


title: Precedent

text: The second principle, regarding persuasive precedent, reflects the broad precedent guidance a court may draw upon in reaching all of its decisions.


title: Precedent

text: In the common-law tradition, courts decide the law applicable to a case by interpreting statutes and applying precedent, which record how and why prior cases have been decided. Unlike most civil-law systems, common-law systems follow the doctrine of "stare decisis", by which most courts are bound by their own previous decisions in similar cases, and all lower courts should make decisions consistent with previous decisions of higher courts. For example, in England and Wales, the High Court and the Court of Appeal are each bound by their own previous decisions, but the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is able to deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it rarely does so.


title: Precedent

text: Generally speaking, higher courts do not have direct oversight over day-to-day proceedings in lower courts, in that they cannot reach out on their own initiative ("sua sponte") at any time to reverse or overrule decisions of the lower courts. Normally, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings (including those in clear violation of established case law) to the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent and the case is not appealed, the decision will stand.


title: Precedent

text: A lower court may not rule against a binding precedent, even if the lower court feels that the precedent is unjust; the lower court may only express the hope that a higher court or the legislature will reform the rule in question. If the court believes that developments or trends in legal reasoning render the precedent unhelpful, and wishes to evade it and help the law evolve, the court may either hold that the precedent is inconsistent with subsequent authority, or that the precedent should be "distinguished" by some material difference between the facts of the cases. If that decision goes to appeal, the appellate court will have the opportunity to review both the precedent and the case under appeal, perhaps overruling the previous case law by setting a new precedent of higher authority. This may happen several times as the case works its way through successive appeals. Lord Denning, first of the High Court of Justice, later of the Court of Appeal, provided a famous example of this evolutionary process in his development of the concept of estoppel starting in the "High Trees" case: "Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd" [1947] K.B. 130.


title: Precedent

text: Judges may refer to various types of persuasive authority to reach a decision in a case. Widely cited nonbinding sources include legal encyclopedias such as "Corpus Juris Secundum" and "Halsbury's Laws of England", or the published work of the Law Commission or the American Law Institute. Some bodies are given statutory powers to issue guidance with persuasive authority or similar statutory effect, such as the Highway Code.


title: Precedent

text: In federal or multijurisdictional law systems, conflicts may exist between the various lower appellate courts. Sometimes these differences may not be resolved and distinguishing how the law is applied in one district, province, division or appellate department may be necessary. Usually, only an appeal accepted by the court of last resort will resolve such differences, and for many reasons, such appeals are often not granted.


title: Precedent

text: Any court may seek to distinguish its present case from that of a binding precedent, to reach a different conclusion. The validity of such a distinction may or may not be accepted on appeal. An appellate court may also propound an entirely new and different analysis from that of junior courts, and may or may not be bound by its own previous decisions, or in any case may distinguish the decisions based on significant differences in the facts applicable to each case. Or, a court may view the matter before it as one of "first impression", not governed by any controlling precedent.


title: Precedent

text: When various members of a multi-judge court write separate opinions, the reasoning may differ; only the "ratio decidendi" of the majority becomes binding precedent. For example, if a 12-member court splits 5–2–3–2 in four different opinions on several different issues, whatever reasoning commands seven votes on each specific issue becomes precedent, and the seven-judge majorities may differ issue-to-issue. All may be cited as persuasive (though of course opinions that concur in the majority result are more persuasive than dissents).


title: Precedent

text: Quite apart from the rules of precedent, the weight actually given to any reported opinion may depend on the reputation of both the court and the judges with respect to the specific issue. For example, in the United States, the Second Circuit (New York and surrounding states) is especially respected in commercial and securities law, the Seventh Circuit (in Chicago), especially Judge Posner, is highly regarded on antitrust, and the District of Columbia Circuit is highly regarded on administrative law.


title: Precedent

text: Generally, a common law court system has trial courts, intermediate appellate courts and a supreme court. The inferior courts conduct almost all trial proceedings. The inferior courts are bound to obey precedent established by the appellate court for their jurisdiction, and all supreme court precedent.


title: Precedent

text: An Intermediate state appellate court is generally bound to follow the decisions of the highest court of that state.


title: Precedent

text: The application of the doctrine of "stare decisis" from a higher court or a court superior to those courts inferior to it or lower in the tribunal hierarchy is sometimes called "vertical stare decisis".


title: Precedent

text: The idea that a judge is bound by (or at least should respect) decisions of earlier judges of similar or coordinate level is called horizontal "stare decisis".


title: Precedent

text: In the United States federal court system, the intermediate appellate courts are divided into thirteen "circuits", each covering some range of territory ranging in size from the District of Columbia alone, and up to seven states. Each panel of judges on the court of appeals for a circuit is bound to obey the prior appellate decisions of the same circuit. Precedent of a United States court of appeals may be overruled only by the court "en banc", that is, a session of all the active appellate judges of the circuit, or by the United States Supreme Court, not simply by a different three-judge panel.


title: Precedent

text: When a court binds itself, this application of the doctrine of precedent is sometimes called "horizontal stare decisis". The state of New York has a similar appellate structure as it is divided into four appellate departments supervised by the final New York Court of Appeals. Decisions of one appellate department are not binding upon another, and in some cases the departments differ considerably on interpretations of law.


title: Precedent

text: In federal systems the division between federal and state law may result in complex interactions. In the United States, state courts are not considered inferior to federal courts but rather constitute a parallel court system.


title: Precedent

text: In practice, however, judges in one system will almost always choose to follow relevant case law in the other system to prevent divergent results and to minimize forum shopping.


title: Precedent

text: Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as "binding precedent" (alternately "metaphorically precedent", "mandatory" or "binding authority", etc.). Under the doctrine of "stare decisis", a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In state and federal courts in the United States of America, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court. All appellate courts fall under a highest court (sometimes but not always called a "supreme court"). By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on local courts that fall under a different appeals court. Further, courts must follow their own proclamations of law made earlier on other cases, and honor rulings made by other courts in disputes among the parties before them pertaining to the same pattern of facts or events, unless they have a strong reason to change these rulings.


title: Precedent

text: In law, a binding precedent (also known as a mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts under common law legal systems. In English law it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. In civil law and pluralist systems, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.


title: Precedent

text: Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of "stare decisis". "Stare decisis" means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedent from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy.


title: Precedent

text: In extraordinary circumstances a higher court may overturn or overrule mandatory precedent, but will often attempt to distinguish the precedent before overturning it, thereby limiting the scope of the precedent.


title: Precedent

text: Under the U.S. legal system, courts are set up in a hierarchy. At the top of the federal or national system is the Supreme Court, and underneath are lower federal courts. The state court systems have hierarchy structures similar to that of the federal system.


title: Precedent

text: The U.S. Supreme Court has final authority on questions about the meaning of federal law, including the U.S. Constitution. For example, when the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment applies in a specific way to suits for slander, then every court is bound by that precedent in its interpretation of the First Amendment as it applies to suits for slander. If a lower court judge disagrees with a higher court precedent on what the First Amendment should mean, the lower court judge must rule according to the binding precedent. Until the higher court changes the ruling (or the law itself is changed), the binding precedent is authoritative on the meaning of the law.


title: Precedent

text: Lower courts are bound by the precedent set by higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the mid-level appeals court that hears appeals from district court decisions from Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands) is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by rulings in the Ninth Circuit (Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, and Washington), since the Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction defined by geography. The Circuit Courts of Appeals can interpret the law how they want, so long as there is no binding Supreme Court precedent. One of the common reasons the Supreme Court grants "certiorari" (that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a conflict among the circuit courts as to the meaning of a federal law.


title: Precedent

text: There are three elements needed for a precedent to work. Firstly, the hierarchy of the courts needs to be accepted, and an efficient system of law reporting. "A balance must be struck between the need on one side for the legal certainty resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law."


title: Precedent

text: Judges are bound by the law of binding precedent in England and Wales and other common law jurisdictions. This is a distinctive feature of the English legal system. In Scotland and many countries throughout the world, particularly in mainland Europe, civil law means that judges take case law into account in a similar way, but are not obliged to do so and are required to consider the precedent in terms of principle. Their fellow judges' decisions may be persuasive but are not binding. Under the English legal system, judges are not necessarily entitled to make their own decisions about the development or interpretations of the law. They may be bound by a decision reached in a previous case. Two facts are crucial to determining whether a precedent is binding:


title: Precedent

text: In a conflict of laws situation, jus cogens norms erga omnes and principles of the common law such as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to a varying degree in different jurisdictions, are deemed overriding which means they are used to "read down" legislation, that is giving them a particular purposive interpretation, for example applying European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence of courts (case law).


title: Precedent

text: "Super "stare decisis"" is a term used for important precedent that is resistant or immune from being overturned, without regard to whether correctly decided in the first place. It may be viewed as one extreme in a range of precedential power, or alternatively, to express a belief, or a critique of that belief, that some decisions should not be overturned.


title: Precedent

text: In 1976, Richard Posner and William Landes coined the term "super-precedent" in an article they wrote about testing theories of precedent by counting citations. Posner and Landes used this term to describe the influential effect of a cited decision. The term "super-precedent" later became associated with different issue: the difficulty of overturning a decision. In 1992, Rutgers professor Earl Maltz criticized the Supreme Court's decision in "Planned Parenthood v. Casey" for endorsing the idea that if one side can take control of the Court on an issue of major national importance (as in "Roe v. Wade"), that side can protect its position from being reversed "by a kind of super-stare decisis". The controversial idea that some decisions are virtually immune from being overturned, regardless of whether they were decided correctly in the first place, is the idea to which the term "super-"stare decisis"" now usually refers.


title: Precedent

text: The concept of super-"stare decisis" (or "super-precedent") was mentioned during the hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Prior to the commencement of the Roberts hearings, the committee chair, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, wrote an op-ed in "The New York Times" referring to "Roe" as a "super-precedent". He revisited this concept during the hearings, but neither Roberts nor Alito endorsed the term or the concept.


title: Precedent

text: Persuasive precedent (also persuasive authority) is precedent or other legal writing that is not binding precedent but that is useful or relevant and that may guide the judge in making the decision in a current case. Persuasive precedent includes cases decided by lower courts, by peer or higher courts from other geographic jurisdictions, cases made in other parallel systems (for example, military courts, administrative courts, indigenous/tribal courts, state courts versus federal courts in the United States), statements made in dicta, treatises or academic law reviews, and in some exceptional circumstances, cases of other nations, treaties, world judicial bodies, etc.


title: Precedent

text: In a "case of first impression", courts often rely on persuasive precedent from courts in other jurisdictions that have previously dealt with similar issues. Persuasive precedent may become binding through its adoption by a higher court.


title: Precedent

text: In civil law and pluralist systems, as under Scots law, precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.


title: Precedent

text: A court may consider the ruling of a higher court that is not binding. For example, a district court in the United States First Circuit could consider a ruling made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority.


title: Precedent

text: Courts may consider rulings made in other courts that are of equivalent authority in the legal system. For example, an appellate court for one district could consider a ruling issued by an appeals court in another district.


title: Precedent

text: Courts may consider "obiter dicta" in opinions of higher courts. Dicta of a higher court, though not binding, will often be persuasive to lower courts. The phrase "obiter dicta" is usually translated as "other things said", but due to the high number of judges and individual concurring opinions, it is often hard to distinguish from the "ratio decidendi" (reason for the decision). For these reasons, the obiter dicta may often be taken into consideration by a court. A litigant may also consider "obiter dicta" if a court has previously signaled that a particular legal argument is weak and may even warrant sanctions if repeated.


title: Precedent

text: A case decided by a multijudge panel could result in a split decision. While only the majority opinion is considered precedential, an outvoted judge can still publish a dissenting opinion. Common patterns for dissenting opinions include:


title: Precedent

text: A judge in a subsequent case, particularly in a different jurisdiction, could find the dissenting judge's reasoning persuasive. In the jurisdiction of the original decision, however, a judge should only overturn the holding of a court lower or equivalent in the hierarchy. A district court, for example, could not rely on a Supreme Court dissent as a basis to depart from the reasoning of the majority opinion. However, lower courts occasionally cite dissents, either for a limiting principle on the majority, or for propositions that are not stated in the majority opinion and not inconsistent with that majority, or to explain a disagreement with the majority and to urge reform (while following the majority in the outcome).


title: Precedent

text: Courts may consider the writings of eminent legal scholars in treatises, restatements of the law, and law reviews. The extent to which judges find these types of writings persuasive will vary widely with elements such as the reputation of the author and the relevance of the argument.


title: Precedent

text: In the United States, every state attorney general is permitted to issue advisory opinions on questions of law. It is a process that has its origins in the English common law. Most state attorney opinions address issues of government finance or the authority of political bodies within the state. Often, these opinions are the only available authority interpreting rarely‑litigated statutes and constitutional provisions.


title: Precedent

text: By and large, courts treat state attorney general opinions as persuasive authority. The opinions lack the force of law that statutes and judicial opinions have. But, they still have the potential to act as a sort of pseudo‑law if they constrain the activities of public officials or the public. Often times, this effect depends on the “formality” of the opinion. Opinions can be either formal, meaning they are published, or informal, meaning that they are sent directly to the opinion requestor. Although formal opinions can act as a sort of binding precedent when they answer legal questions that a court has not, either form of opinion may act as a source of law if they have a direct effect on the administration of government.


title: Precedent

text: The courts of England and Wales are free to consider decisions of other jurisdictions, and give them whatever persuasive weight the English court sees fit, even though these other decisions are not binding precedent. Jurisdictions that are closer to modern English common law are more likely to be given persuasive weight (for example Commonwealth states such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand). Persuasive weight might be given to other common law courts, such as from the United States, most often where the American courts have been particularly innovative, e.g. in product liability and certain areas of contract law.


title: Precedent

text: In the United States, in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the concept of a U.S. court considering foreign law or precedent has been considered controversial by some parties. The Supreme Court splits on this issue. This critique is recent, as in the early history of the United States, citation of English authority was ubiquitous. One of the first acts of many of the new state legislatures was to adopt the body of English common law into the law of the state. Citation to English cases was common through the 19th and well into the 20th centuries. Even in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, it is relatively uncontroversial for American state courts to rely on English decisions for matters of pure common (i.e. judge-made) law.


title: Precedent

text: Within the federal legal systems of several common-law countries, and most especially the United States, it is relatively common for the distinct lower-level judicial systems (e.g. state courts in the United States and Australia, provincial courts in Canada) to regard the decisions of other jurisdictions within the same country as persuasive precedent. Particularly in the United States, the adoption of a legal doctrine by a large number of other state judiciaries is regarded as highly persuasive evidence that such doctrine is preferred. A good example is the adoption in Tennessee of comparative negligence (replacing contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery) by the 1992 Tennessee Supreme Court decision "McIntyre v. Balentine" (by this point all US jurisdictions save Tennessee, five other states, and the District of Columbia had adopted comparative negligence schemes). Moreover, in American law, the "Erie" doctrine requires federal courts sitting in diversity actions to apply state substantive law, but in a manner consistent with how the court believes the state's highest court would rule in that case. Since such decisions are not binding on state courts, but are often very well-reasoned and useful, state courts cite federal interpretations of state law fairly often as persuasive precedent, although it is also fairly common for a state high court to reject a federal court's interpretation of its jurisprudence.


title: Precedent

text: Nonpublication of opinions, or unpublished opinions, are those decisions of courts that are not available for citation as precedent because the judges making the opinion deem the cases as having less precedential value. Selective publication is the legal process which a judge or justices of a court decide whether a decision is to be or not published in a reporter. "Unpublished" federal appellate decisions are published in the Federal Appendix. Depublication is the power of a court to make a previously published order or opinion unpublished.


title: Precedent

text: Litigation that is settled out of court generates no written decision, thus has no precedential effect. As one practical effect, the U.S. Department of Justice settles many cases against the federal government simply to avoid creating adverse precedent.


title: Precedent

text: Several rules may cause a decision to apply as narrow "precedent" to preclude future legal positions of the specific parties to a case, even if a decision is non-precedential with respect to all other parties.


title: Precedent

text: Once a case is decided, the same plaintiff cannot sue the same defendant again on any claim arising out of the same facts. The law requires plaintiffs to put all issues on the table in a single case, not split the case. For example, in a case of an auto accident, the plaintiff cannot sue first for property damage, and then personal injury in a separate case. This is called "res judicata" or claim preclusion ("Res judicata" is the traditional name going back centuries; the name shifted to "claim preclusion" in the United States over the late 20th century). Claim preclusion applies regardless of the plaintiff wins or loses the earlier case, even if the later case raises a different legal theory, even the second claim is unknown at the time of the first case. Exceptions are extremely limited, for example if the two claims for relief must necessarily be brought in different courts (for example, one claim might be exclusively federal, and the other exclusively state).


title: Precedent

text: Once a case is finally decided, any issues decided in the previous case may be binding against the party who lost the issue in later cases, even in cases involving other parties. For example, if a first case decides that a party was negligent, then other plaintiffs may rely on that earlier determination in later cases, and need not reprove the issue of negligence. For another example, if a patent is shown to be invalid in a case against one accused infringer, that same patent is invalid against all other accused infringers—invalidity need not be reproven. Again, limits and exceptions on this principle exist. The principle is called collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.


title: Precedent

text: Within a single case, once there has been a first appeal, both the lower court and the appellate court itself will not further review the same issue, and will not re-review an issue that could have been appealed in the first appeal. Exceptions are limited to three "exceptional circumstances": (1) when substantially different evidence is raised at a subsequent trial, (2) when the law changes after the first appeal, for example by a decision of a higher court, or (3) when a decision is clearly erroneous and would result in a manifest injustice. This principle is called "law of the case".


title: Precedent

text: On many questions, reasonable people may differ. When two of those people are judges, the tension among two lines of precedent may be resolved as follows.


title: Precedent

text: If the two courts are in separate, parallel jurisdictions, there is no conflict, and two lines of precedent may persist. Courts in one jurisdiction are influenced by decisions in others, and notably better rules may be adopted over time.


title: Precedent

text: Courts try to formulate the common law as a "seamless web" so that principles in one area of the law apply to other areas. However, this principle does not apply uniformly. Thus, a word may have different definitions in different areas of the law, or different rules may apply so that a question has different answers in different legal contexts. Judges try to minimize these conflicts, but they arise from time to time, and under principles of 'stare decisis', may persist for some time.


title: Precedent

text: A matter of first impression (also known as an "issue of first impression", "case of first impression", or, in Latin, as "primae impressionis") is an issue where the parties disagree on what the applicable law is, and there is no prior binding authority, so that the matter has to be decided for the first time. A first impression case may be a first impression in only a particular jurisdiction.


title: Precedent

text: By definition, a case of first impression cannot be decided by precedent. Since there is no precedent for the court to follow, the court uses the plain language and legislative history of any statute that must be interpreted, holdings of other jurisdictions, persuasive authority and analogies from prior rulings by other courts (which may be higher, peers, or lower courts in the hierarchy, or from other jurisdictions), commentaries and articles by legal scholars, and the court's own logic and sense of justice.


title: Precedent

text: The different roles of case law in civil law and common law traditions create differences in the way that courts render decisions. Common law courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale behind their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often an exegesis of the wider legal principles. These are called "ratio decidendi" and constitute a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary to the determination of the current case are called "obiter dicta", which have persuasive authority but are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil law jurisdictions are generally very short, referring only to statutes, not very analytical, and fact-based. The reason for this difference is that these civil law jurisdictions apply legislative positivism – a form of legal positivism – which holds that legislation is the only valid source of law because it has been voted on democratically; thus, it is not the judiciary's role to create law, but rather to interpret and apply statute, and therefore their decisions must reflect that.


title: Precedent

text: "Stare decisis" is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the legislative positivist principle that only the legislature may make law. Instead, the civil law system relies on the doctrine of "jurisprudence constante", according to which if a court has adjudicated a consistent line of cases that arrive at the same holdings using sound reasoning, then the previous decisions are highly persuasive but not controlling on issues of law. This doctrine is similar to "stare decisis" insofar as it dictates that a court's decision must condone a cohesive and predictable result. In theory, lower courts are generally not bound by the precedents of higher courts. In practice, the need for predictability means that lower courts generally defer to the precedent of higher courts. As a result, the precedent of courts of last resort, such as the French Cassation Court and the Council of State, is recognized as being "de facto" binding on lower courts.


title: Precedent

text: The doctrine of "jurisprudence constante" also influences how court decisions are structured. In general, court decisions of common law jurisdictions give a sufficient "ratio decidendi" as to guide future courts. The ratio is used to justify a court decision on the basis of previous case law as well as to make it easier to use the decision as a precedent for future cases. By contrast, court decisions in some civil law jurisdictions (most prominently France) tend to be extremely brief, mentioning only the relevant legislation and codal provisions and not going into the "ratio decidendi" in any great detail. This is the result of the legislative positivist view that the court is only interpreting the legislature's intent and therefore detailed exposition is unnecessary. Because of this, "ratio decidendi" is carried out by legal academics (doctrinal writers) who provide the explanations that in common law jurisdictions would be provided by the judges themselves.


title: Precedent

text: In other civil law jurisdictions, such as the German-speaking countries, "ratio decidendi" tend to be much more developed than in France, and courts will frequently cite previous cases and doctrinal writers. However, some courts (such as German courts) have less emphasis on the particular facts of the case than common law courts, but have more emphasis on the discussion of various doctrinal arguments and on finding what the correct interpretation of the law is.


title: Precedent

text: The mixed systems of the Nordic countries are sometimes considered a branch of the civil law, but they are sometimes counted as separate from the civil law tradition. In Sweden, for instance, case law arguably plays a more important role than in some of the continental civil law systems. The two highest courts, the Supreme Court ("Högsta domstolen") and the Supreme Administrative Court ("Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen"), have the right to set precedent which has persuasive authority on all future application of the law. Appellate courts, be they judicial ("hovrätter") or administrative ("kammarrätter"), may also issue decisions that act as guides for the application of the law, but these decisions are persuasive, not controlling, and may therefore be overturned by higher courts.


title: Precedent

text: Some mixed systems, such as Scots law in Scotland, South-African law, Laws of the Philippines, and the law of Quebec and Louisiana, do not fit into the civil vs. common law dichotomy because they mix portions of both. Such systems may have been heavily influenced by the common law tradition; however, their private law is firmly rooted in the civil law tradition. Because of their position between the two main systems of law, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as "mixed" systems of law. Louisiana courts, for instance, operate under both "stare decisis" and "jurisprudence constante". In South Africa, the precedent of higher courts is absolutely or fully binding on lower courts, whereas the precedent of lower courts only has persuasive authority on higher courts; horizontally, precedent is "prima facie" or presumptively binding between courts.


title: Precedent

text: Law professors in common law traditions play a much smaller role in developing case law than professors in civil law traditions. Because court decisions in civil law traditions are brief and not amenable to establishing precedent, much of the exposition of the law in civil law traditions is done by academics rather than by judges; this is called doctrine and may be published in treatises or in journals such as "Recueil Dalloz" in France. Historically, common law courts relied little on legal scholarship; thus, at the turn of the twentieth century, it was very rare to see an academic writer quoted in a legal decision (except perhaps for the academic writings of prominent judges such as Coke and Blackstone). Today academic writers are often cited in legal argument and decisions as persuasive authority; often, they are cited when judges are attempting to implement reasoning that other courts have not yet adopted, or when the judge believes the academic's restatement of the law is more compelling than can be found in precedent. Thus common law systems are adopting one of the approaches long common in civil law jurisdictions.


title: Precedent

text: Justice Louis Brandeis, in a heavily footnoted dissent to "Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co.", , 405–411 (1932), explained (citations and quotations omitted):


title: Precedent

text: In his "landmark dissent" in "Burnet", Brandeis "catalogued the Court's actual overruling practices in such a powerful manner that his attendant stare decisis analysis immediately assumed canonical authority."


title: Precedent

text: Precedent viewed against passing time can serve to establish trends, thus indicating the next logical step in evolving interpretations of the law. For instance, if immigration has become more and more restricted under the law, then the next legal decision on that subject may serve to restrict it further still. The existence of submerged precedent (reasoned opinions not made available through conventional legal research sources) has been identified as a potentially distorting force in the evolution of law.


title: Precedent

text: Scholars have recently attempted to apply network theory to precedent in order to establish which precedent is most important or authoritative, and how the court's interpretations and priorities have changed over time.


title: Precedent

text: Early English common law did not have or require the "stare decisis" doctrine for a range of legal and technological reasons:


title: Precedent

text: Over time courts in the United States and especially its Supreme Court developed a large body of judicial decisions which are called "precedents". These "[r]ules and principles established in prior cases inform the Court's future decisions." The adherence to rules and principles created in past cases as a foundation for future decisions by the courts is called "stare decisis". The United States Supreme Court considers stare decisis not only as an important doctrine, but also "the means by which we ensure that the law will not merely change erratically, but will develop in a principled and intelligible fashion." "Stare decisis" aims to bolster the legitimacy of the judicial process and foster the rule of law. It does so by strengthening stability, certainty, predictability, consistency and uniformity in the application of the law to cases and litigants. By adhering to "stare decisis" the Supreme Court attempts to preserve its role "as a careful, unbiased, and predictable decisionmaker that decides cases according to the law rather than the Justices' individual policy preferences." In "Vasquez v. Hillery" (1986) the Supreme Court stated succinctly that stare decisis "contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact" by maintaining the notion "that bedrock principles are founded in the law, rather than in the proclivities of individuals."


title: Precedent

text: "Stare decisis" reduces the number and scope of legal questions that the court must resolve in litigation. It is therefore a time saver for judges and litigants. Once a court has settled a particular question of law it has established a precedent. Thanks to "stare decisis" lawsuits can be quickly and efficiently dismissed because legal battles can be resolved through recourse to rules and principles established prior decisions. "Stare decisis" can thus encourage parties to settle cases out of court and thereby enhance judicial efficiency.


title: Precedent

text: Several Supreme Court decisions were overruled by subsequent decisions since 1798. In doing so the Supreme Court has time and time again made several statements regarding stare decisis. The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of these statements:


title: Precedent

text: "Stare decisis" applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta ("things said by the way"). As the United States Supreme Court has put it: "dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding".


title: Precedent

text: In the U.S. Supreme Court, the principle of stare decisis is most flexible in constitutional cases, as observed by Justice Brandeis in his landmark dissent in "Burnet" (as quoted at length above). For example, in the years 1946–1992, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed itself in about 130 cases. The U.S. Supreme Court has further explained as follows:


title: Precedent

text: The Court has stated that where a court gives multiple reasons for a given result, each alternative reason that is "explicitly" labeled by the court as an "independent" ground for the decision is not treated as "simply a dictum".


title: Precedent

text: As Colin Starger has pointed out, the contemporary rule of stare decisis descended from Brandeis's landmark dissent in "Burnet" would later split into strong and weak conceptions as a result of the disagreement between Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall in "Payne v. Tennessee" (1991). The strong conception requires a "special justification" to overrule challenged precedent beyond the fact the precedent was "wrongly decided", while the weak conception holds that a precedent can be overruled if it suffers from "bad reasoning".


title: Precedent

text: The opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in the case "June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo" provides a clear statement of the strong conception of "stare decisis". In this case, the Court upheld, by a 5-4 margin, their 2016 decision in "Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt " that struck down a similar Texas law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have the right to admit patients at a nearby hospital. Roberts wrote, “The legal doctrine of "stare decisis" requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike." Roberts provided the fifth vote to uphold the 2016 decision, even though he felt it was wrongly decided.


title: Precedent

text: The doctrine of binding precedent or "stare decisis" is basic to the English legal system. Special features of the English legal system include the following:


title: Precedent

text: The British House of Lords, as the court of last appeal outside Scotland before it was replaced by the UK Supreme Court, was not strictly bound to always follow its own decisions until the case "London Street Tramways v London County Council" [1898] AC 375. After this case, once the Lords had given a ruling on a point of law, the matter was closed unless and until Parliament made a change by statute. This is the most strict form of the doctrine of "stare decisis" (one not applied, previously, in common law jurisdictions, where there was somewhat greater flexibility for a court of last resort to review its own precedent).


title: Precedent

text: This situation changed, however, after the issuance of the Practice Statement of 1966. It enabled the House of Lords to adapt English law to meet changing social conditions. In "R v G & R" 2003, the House of Lords overruled its decision in "Caldwell" 1981, which had allowed the Lords to establish mens rea ("guilty mind") by measuring a defendant's conduct against that of a "reasonable person", regardless of the defendant's actual state of mind.


title: Precedent

text: However, the Practice Statement was seldom applied by the House of Lords, usually only as a last resort. Up to 2005, the House of Lords rejected its past decisions no more than 20 times. They were reluctant to use it because they feared to introduce uncertainty into the law. In particular, the Practice Statement stated that the Lords would be especially reluctant to overrule themselves in criminal cases because of the importance of certainty of that law. The first case involving criminal law to be overruled with the Practice Statement was "Anderton v Ryan" (1985), which was overruled by "R v Shivpuri" (1986), two decades after the Practice Statement. Remarkably, the precedent overruled had been made only a year before, but it had been criticised by several academic lawyers. As a result, Lord Bridge stated he was "undeterred by the consideration that the decision in "Anderton v Ryan" was so recent. The Practice Statement is an effective abandonment of our pretension to infallibility. If a serious error embodied in a decision of this House has distorted the law, the sooner it is corrected the better." Still, the House of Lords has remained reluctant to overrule itself in some cases; in "R v Kansal" (2002), the majority of House members adopted the opinion that "R v Lambert" had been wrongly decided and agreed to depart from their earlier decision.


title: Precedent

text: A precedent does not bind a court if it finds there was a lack of care in the original "Per Incuriam". For example, if a statutory provision or precedent had not been brought to the previous court's attention before its decision, the precedent would not be binding.


title: Precedent

text: One of the most important roles of precedent is to resolve ambiguities in other legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and regulations. The process involves, first and foremost, consultation of the plain language of the text, as enlightened by the legislative history of enactment, subsequent precedent, and experience with various interpretations of similar texts.


title: Precedent

text: A judge's normal aids include access to all previous cases in which a precedent has been set, and a good English dictionary.


title: Precedent

text: Under the literal rule, the judge should do what the actual legislation states rather than trying to do what the judge thinks that it means. The judge should use the plain everyday ordinary meaning of the words, even if this produces an unjust or undesirable outcome. A good example of problems with this method is "R v Maginnis" (1987), in which several judges in separate opinions found several different dictionary meanings of the word "supply". Another example is "Fisher v Bell", where it was held that a shopkeeper who placed an illegal item in a shop window with a price tag did not make an offer to sell it, because of the specific meaning of "offer for sale" in contract law, merely an invitation to treat. As a result of this case, Parliament amended the statute concerned to end this discrepancy.


title: Precedent

text: The golden rule is used when use of the literal rule would obviously create an absurd result. There are two ways in which the golden rule can be applied: a narrow method, and a broad method. Under the narrow method, when there are apparently two contradictory meanings to the wording of a legislative provision, or the wording is ambiguous, the least absurd is to be preferred. Under the broad method, the court modifies the literal meaning in such a way as to avoid the absurd result. An example of the latter approach is "Adler v George" (1964). Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place. Adler argued that he was not in the "vicinity" of such a place but was actually "in" it. The court chose not to read the statutory wording in a literal sense to avoid what would otherwise be an absurd result, and Adler was convicted.


title: Precedent

text: The mischief rule is the most flexible of the interpretation methods. Stemming from "Heydon's Case" (1584), it allows the court to enforce what the statute is intended to remedy rather than what the words actually say. For example, in "Corkery v Carpenter" (1950), a man was found guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage, although in fact he only had a bicycle. The final rule; although will no longer be used after the UK fully transitions out of the European Union. Known as the Purposive approach- this considers the intention of the European Court of Justice when the act was passed.


title: Precedent

text: In the United States, the courts have stated consistently that the text of the statute is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.


title: Precedent

text: However, most legal texts have some lingering ambiguity—inevitably, situations arise in which the words chosen by the legislature do not address the precise facts in issue, or there is some tension among two or more statutes. In such cases, a court must analyze the various available sources, and reach a resolution of the ambiguity. The "Canons of statutory construction" are discussed in a separate article. Once the ambiguity is resolved, that resolution has binding effect as described in the rest of this article.


title: Precedent

text: Although inferior courts are bound in theory by superior court precedent, in practice a judge may believe that justice requires an outcome at some variance with precedent, and may distinguish the facts of the individual case on reasoning that does not appear in the binding precedent. On appeal, the appellate court may either adopt the new reasoning, or reverse on the basis of precedent. On the other hand, if the losing party does not appeal (typically because of the cost of the appeal), the lower court decision may remain in effect, at least as to the individual parties.


title: Precedent

text: Occasionally, lower court judges may explicitly state a personal disagreement with the rendered judgment, but are required to rule a particular way because of binding precedent. Note that inferior courts cannot evade binding precedent of superior courts, but a court can depart from its own prior decisions.


title: Precedent

text: In the United States, "stare decisis" can interact in counterintuitive ways with the federal and state court systems. On an issue of federal law, a state court is not bound by an interpretation of federal law at the district or circuit level, but is bound by an interpretation by the United States Supreme Court. On an interpretation of state law, whether common law or statutory law, the federal courts are bound by the interpretation of a state court of last resort, and are required normally to defer to the precedent of intermediate state courts as well.


title: Precedent

text: Courts may choose to obey precedent of international jurisdictions, but this is not an application of the doctrine of "stare decisis", because foreign decisions are not binding. Rather, a foreign decision that is obeyed on the basis of the soundness of its reasoning will be called "persuasive authority"—indicating that its effect is limited to the persuasiveness of the reasons it provides.


title: Precedent

text: Originalism is an approach to interpretation of a legal text in which controlling weight is given to the intent of the original authors (at least the intent as inferred by a modern judge). In contrast, a non-originalist looks at other cues to meaning, including the current meaning of the words, the pattern and trend of other judicial decisions, changing context and improved scientific understanding, observation of practical outcomes and "what works", contemporary standards of justice, and "stare decisis". Both are directed at "interpreting" the text, not changing it—interpretation is the process of resolving ambiguity and choosing from among possible meanings, not changing the text.


title: Precedent

text: The two approaches look at different sets of underlying facts that may or may not point in the same direction—"stare decisis" gives most weight to the newest understanding of a legal text, while originalism gives most weight to the oldest. While they do not necessarily reach different results in every case, the two approaches are in direct tension. Originalists such as Justice Antonin Scalia argue that ""Stare decisis" is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law." Justice Scalia argues that America is a civil law nation, not a common law nation. By principle, originalists are generally unwilling to defer to precedent when precedent seems to come into conflict with the originalist's own interpretation of the Constitutional text or inferences of original intent (even in situations where there is no original source statement of that original intent). However, there is still room within an originalist paradigm for "stare decisis"; whenever the plain meaning of the text has alternative constructions, past precedent is generally considered a valid guide, with the qualifier being that it cannot change what the text actually says.


title: Precedent

text: Originalists vary in the degree to which they defer to precedent. In his confirmation hearings, Justice Clarence Thomas answered a question from Senator Strom Thurmond, qualifying his willingness to change precedent in this way:


title: Precedent

text: Possibly he has changed his mind, or there are a very large body of cases which merit "the additional step" of ignoring the doctrine; according to Scalia, "Clarence Thomas doesn't believe in stare decisis, period. If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say, let's get it right."


title: Precedent

text: Caleb Nelson, a former clerk for Justice Thomas and law professor at the University of Virginia, has elaborated on the role of "stare decisis" in originalist jurisprudence:


title: Precedent

text: One of the most prominent critics of the development of legal precedent on a case-by-case basis as both overly reactive and unfairly retroactive was philosopher Jeremy Bentham. He famously attacked the common law as "dog law":


title: Precedent

text: In a 1997 book, attorney Michael Trotter blamed overreliance by American lawyers on precedent — especially persuasive authority of marginal relevance — rather than the merits of the case at hand, as a major factor behind the escalation of legal costs during the 20th century. He argued that courts should ban the citation of persuasive authority from outside their jurisdiction and force lawyers and parties to argue only from binding precedent, subject to two exceptions:


title: Precedent

text: The disadvantages of "stare decisis" include its rigidity, the complexity of learning law, the fact that differences between certain cases may be very small and thereby appear illogical and arbitrary, and the slow growth or incremental changes to the law that are in need of major overhaul.


title: Precedent

text: An argument often leveled against precedent is that it is undemocratic because it allows judges, who may or may not be elected, to make law.


title: Precedent

text: A counter-argument (in favor of the advantages of "stare decisis") is that if the legislature wishes to alter the case law (other than constitutional interpretations) by statute, the legislature is empowered to do so. Critics sometimes accuse particular judges of applying the doctrine selectively, invoking it to support precedent that the judge supported anyway, but ignoring it in order to change precedent with which the judge disagreed


title: Precedent

text: There is much discussion about the virtue of using "stare decisis". Supporters of the system, such as minimalists, argue that obeying precedent makes decisions "predictable". For example, a business person can be reasonably assured of predicting a decision where the facts of his or her case are sufficiently similar to a case decided previously. This parallels the arguments against retroactive (ex post facto) laws banned by the U.S. Constitution .


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded in 1977 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Koch Industries. Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and societal influence. According to the "2020 Global Go To Think Tank Index Report" (Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program, University of Pennsylvania), Cato is number 27 in the "Top Think Tanks Worldwide" and number 13 in the "Top Think Tanks in the United States".


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute is libertarian in its political philosophy, and advocates a limited role for government in domestic and foreign affairs as well as a strong protection of civil liberties. This includes support for lowering or abolishing most taxes, opposition to the Federal Reserve system and the Affordable Care Act, the privatization of numerous government agencies and programs including Social Security and the United States Postal Service, demilitarization of the police, and adhering to a non-interventionist foreign policy.


title: Cato Institute

text: The institute was founded in January 1977 in San Francisco, California; named at the suggestion of Murray Rothbard after "Cato's Letters", a series of British essays penned in the early 18th century by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 1981, Murray Rothbard was removed from the Cato Institute by the board. The board wanted to move Cato into political policy making. Rothbard thought it should be devoted to scholarship.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato relocated to Washington, D.C., in 1981, settling initially in a historic house on Capitol Hill. The institute moved to its current location on Massachusetts Avenue in 1993. Cato Institute was named the fifth-ranked think tank in the world for 2009 in a study of think tanks by James G. McGann, PhD of the University of Pennsylvania, based on a criterion of excellence in "producing rigorous and relevant research, publications and programs in one or more substantive areas of research".


title: Cato Institute

text: By 2011, the Cato Institute had a budget of $39 million and was "one of the largest think tanks in Washington".


title: Cato Institute

text: Various Cato programs were favorably ranked in a survey published by the University of Pennsylvania in 2012.


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute publishes numerous policy studies, briefing papers, periodicals, and books. Journals include the "Cato Journal"


title: Cato Institute

text: (since 1981) and "Regulation" (acquired in 1990). Other periodicals include "Cato's Letter", "Cato Supreme Court Review", and "Cato Policy Report". Cato published "Inquiry Magazine" from 1977 to 1982 (before transferring it to the Libertarian Review Foundation) and "Literature of Liberty" from 1978 to 1979 (before transferring it to the Institute for Humane Studies). Additionally, Cato publishes numerous white papers on a wide variety of policy topics. Some notable examples include "Drug Decriminalization in Portugal: Lessons for Creating Fair and Successful Drug Policies" (2009) by Glenn Greenwald and "Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Policy Raids in America" (2006) by Radley Balko.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato also co-publishes the annual "Human Freedom Index" (2015–) with the Fraser Institute and is the co-publisher with Fraser of the U.S. edition of the "Economic Freedom of the World" annual report (1996–).


title: Cato Institute

text: In addition to maintaining its own website in English and Spanish, Cato maintains websites focused on particular topics:


title: Cato Institute

text: Social media sponsored by Cato includes pages on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, LinkedIn and TikTok, as well as a presence on Clubhouse, Snapchat, Goodreads, Odysee, and other fora.


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute hosts conferences throughout the year. Topics include monetary policy, the U.S. Constitution, poverty and social welfare, technology and privacy, financial regulation, and civic culture.


title: Cato Institute

text: Speakers at past Cato Institute conferences have included Federal Reserve Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Vice Chairman Richard Clarida, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Rodrigo de Rato, Czech Republic President Václav Klaus, and Avanti Financial Group Founder and CEO Caitlin Long.


title: Cato Institute

text: Many Cato scholars have advocated support for civil liberties, liberal immigration policies, drug liberalization, and the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell and laws restricting consensual sexual activity. The Cato Institute officially resists being labeled as part of the conservative movement because "'conservative' smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo".


title: Cato Institute

text: On the other hand, Cato has strong ties to the political philosophy of classical liberalism. According to executive vice president David Boaz, libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. He argues that, as the term "liberalism" became increasingly associated with government intervention in the economy and social-welfare programs, some classical liberals abandoned the old term and began to call themselves “libertarians”. Officially, Cato admits that the term “classical liberal” comes close to the mark of labeling its position, but fails to capture the contemporary vibrancy of the ideas of freedom. According to Cato's mission statement, the Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called 'libertarianism' or 'market liberalism.' It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2006, Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos proposed the term "Libertarian Democrat" to describe his particular liberal position, suggesting that libertarians should be allies of the Democratic Party. Replying, Cato vice president for research Brink Lindsey agreed that libertarians and liberals should view each other as natural ideological allies, and noted continuing differences between mainstream liberal views on economic policy and Cato's "Jeffersonian philosophy".


title: Cato Institute

text: Some Cato scholars disagree with conservatives on neo-conservative foreign policy, albeit that this has not always been uniform.


title: Cato Institute

text: The relationship between Cato and the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) improved with the nomination of Cato's new president John A. Allison IV in 2012. He is a former ARI board member and is reported to be an "ardent devotee" of Rand who has promoted reading her books to colleges nationwide. In March 2015, Allison retired as president, remaining on the board, and was succeeded by Peter Goettler.


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute advocates policies that advance "individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace". They are libertarian in their policy positions, typically advocating diminished government intervention in domestic, social, and economic policies and decreased military and political intervention worldwide. Cato was cited by columnist Ezra Klein as nonpartisan, saying that it is "the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life" and it "advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power"; and Eric Lichtblau called Cato "one of the country's most widely cited research organizations." Nina Eastman reported in 1995 that "on any given day, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas might be visiting for lunch. Or Cato staffers might be plotting strategy with House Majority Leader Dick Armey, another Texan, and his staff."


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato scholars have consistently called for the privatization of many government services and institutions, including NASA, Social Security, the United States Postal Service, the Transportation Security Administration, public schooling, public transportation systems, and public broadcasting. The institute opposes minimum wage laws, saying that they violate the freedom of contract and thus private property rights, and increase unemployment. It is opposed to expanding overtime regulations, arguing that it will benefit some employees in the short term, while costing jobs or lowering wages of others, and have no meaningful long-term impact. It opposes child labor prohibitions. It opposes public sector unions and supports right-to-work laws. It opposes universal health care, arguing that it is harmful to patients and an intrusion onto individual liberty. It is against affirmative action. It has also called for total abolition of the welfare state, and has argued that it should be replaced with reduced business regulations to create more jobs, and argues that private charities are fully capable of replacing it. Cato has also opposed antitrust laws.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato is an opponent of campaign finance reform, arguing that government is the ultimate form of potential corruption and that such laws undermine democracy by undermining competitive elections. Cato also supports the repeal of the Federal Election Campaign Act.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato has published strong criticisms of the 1998 settlement which many U.S. states signed with the tobacco industry. In 2004, Cato scholar Daniel Griswold wrote in support of President George W. Bush's failed proposal to grant temporary work visas to otherwise undocumented laborers which would have granted limited residency for the purpose of employment in the U.S.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2006, the Cato Institute published a study proposing a Balanced Budget Veto Amendment to the United States Constitution.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2003, Cato filed an amicus brief in support of the Supreme Court's decision in "Lawrence v. Texas", which struck down the remaining state laws that made private, non-commercial homosexual relations between consenting adults illegal. Cato cited the 14th Amendment, among other things, as the source of their support for the ruling. The amicus brief was cited in Justice Kennedy's majority opinion for the Court.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2006, Cato published a Policy Analysis criticising the Federal Marriage Amendment as unnecessary, anti-federalist, and anti-democratic. The amendment would have changed the United States Constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage; the amendment failed in both houses of Congress.


title: Cato Institute

text: A 2006 Cato report by Radley Balko strongly criticized U.S. drug policy and the perceived growing militarization of U.S. law enforcement.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2004, the institute published a paper arguing in favor of "drug re-importation". Cato has published numerous studies criticizing what it calls "corporate welfare", the practice of public officials funneling taxpayer money, usually via targeted budgetary spending, to politically connected corporate interests.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato president Ed Crane and Sierra Club executive director Carl Pope co-wrote a 2002 op-ed piece in "The Washington Post" calling for the abandonment of the Republican energy bill, arguing that it had become little more than a gravy train for Washington, D.C., lobbyists. Again in 2005, Cato scholar Jerry Taylor teamed up with Daniel Becker of the Sierra Club to attack the Republican Energy Bill as a give-away to corporate interests.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato scholars seek to promote a better understanding around the world of the benefits of market‐liberal policies and institutions, openness and engagement in the global economy, and a principled and restrained foreign policy. Cato argues those benefits include notable improvements in human well‐being as countries increase their levels of economic, civil, and personal freedoms. Hence, Cato's position urges the United States should thus engage the world, trade freely, and work with other countries on common concerns, but avoid trying to dominate the globe militarily.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato's non-interventionist foreign policy views, and strong support for civil liberties, have frequently led Cato scholars to criticize those in power, both Republican and Democratic. Cato scholars opposed President George H. W. Bush's 1991 Gulf War operations (a position which caused the organization to lose nearly $1 million in funding), President Bill Clinton's interventions in Haiti and Kosovo, President George W. Bush's 2003 invasion of Iraq, and President Barack Obama's 2011 military intervention in Libya. As a response to the September 11 attacks, Cato scholars supported the removal of al Qaeda and the Taliban regime from power, but are against an indefinite and open-ended military occupation of Afghanistan. Cato scholars criticized U.S. involvement in Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.


title: Cato Institute

text: Ted Galen Carpenter, Cato's vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, criticized many of the arguments offered to justify the 2003 invasion of Iraq. One of the war's earliest critics, Carpenter wrote in January 2002: "Ousting Saddam would make Washington responsible for Iraq's political future and entangle the United States in an endless nation-building mission beset by intractable problems." Carpenter also predicted: "Most notably there is the issue posed by two persistent regional secession movements: the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south." But in 2002 Carpenter wrote, "the United States should not shrink from confronting al-Qaeda in its Pakistani lair,"<ref name="https://web.archive.org"></ref> a position echoed in the institute's policy recommendations for the 108th Congress. Cato's director of foreign policy studies, Christopher Preble, argues in "The Power Problem: How American Military Dominance Makes Us Less Safe, Less Prosperous, and Less Free", that America's position as an unrivaled superpower tempts policymakers to constantly overreach and to redefine ever more broadly the "national interest".


title: Cato Institute

text: Christopher Preble has said that the "scare campaign" to protect military spending from cuts under the Budget Control Act of 2011 has backfired.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato's foreign and defense policies are guided by the view that the United States is relatively secure and so should engage the world, trade freely, and work with other countries on common concerns—but avoid trying to dominate it militarily. As a result, Cato advocates the United States should be an example of democracy and human rights, not their armed vindicator abroad, claiming it has a rich history, from George Washington to Cold War realists like George Kennan. Cato scholars aim to restore this view, with a principled and restrained foreign policy recommendation, to keep the nation out of most foreign conflicts and be cheaper, more ethical, and less destructive of civil liberties.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato's scholars seek to advance policies and support institutions in developing and developed countries that protect human rights and extend the range of personal choice. In particular, Cato's research explores the central role that freedom in its various dimensions—economic, civil, and personal—plays in human progress and in solving some of the world's most pressing problems, including global poverty. To this end Cato co-publishes the annual "Human Freedom Index" (2015–) with the Fraser Institute and is the co-publisher with Fraser of the U.S. edition of the "Economic Freedom of the World" annual report (1996–).


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato argues that most Americans are immigrants or descended from immigrants who sought opportunity and freedom on American shores, and they believe that this continues today with immigrants continuing to become Americans, making the United States a wealthier, freer, and safer country. Cato's research indicates that the current US immigration system excludes most peaceful and healthy immigrants, and urges policymakers to expand and deregulate legal immigration. Further, Cato supports open borders.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato advocates that policymakers must be constantly reminded of the benefits of free trade and the costs of protectionism, arguing free trade is the extension of free markets across political borders. It promotes the idea that enlarging markets to integrate more buyers, sellers, investors, and workers enables more refined specialization and economies of scales, which produce more wealth and higher living standards, and argues that Protectionism does the opposite. Cato's policy recommendations focus on congress and the administration pursuing policies that expand the freedom of Americans to participate in the international marketplace.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato scholars have written about the issues of the environment, including global warming, environmental regulation, and energy policy. According to social scientists Riley Dunlap and Aaron McCright the Cato Institute is one of the "particularly crucial elements of the denial machine", that rejects global warming.


title: Cato Institute

text: PolitiFact.com and "Scientific American" have called Cato's work on global warming "false" and based on "data selection". A December 2003 Cato panel included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Michaels, Balling and Christy agreed that global warming is related at least some degree to human activity but that some scientists and the media have overstated the danger. The Cato Institute has also criticized political attempts to stop global warming as expensive and ineffective.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato scholars have been critical of the Bush administration's views on energy policy. In 2003, Cato scholars Jerry Taylor and Peter Van Doren said the Republican Energy Bill was "hundreds of pages of corporate welfare, symbolic gestures, empty promises, and pork-barrel projects". They also spoke out against the former president's calls for larger ethanol subsidies.


title: Cato Institute

text: With regard to the "Takings Clause" of the United States Constitution and environmental protection, libertarians associated with Cato contended in 2003 that the Constitution is not adequate to guarantee the protection of private property rights.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2019, Cato closed its "Center for the Study of Science" (which E&E News characterized as "a program that for years sought to raise uncertainty about climate science") after its head Pat Michaels had left the institute over disagreements, along with his collaborator Ryan Maue, a meteorologist. By that time, the Cato Institute was also no longer affiliated with its former distinguished fellow Richard Lindzen, another denier of the scientific consensus on climate change.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato scholars were critical of George W. Bush's Republican administration (2001–2009) on several issues, including education, and excessive government spending. On other issues, they supported Bush administration initiatives, most notably health care, Social Security, global warming, tax policy, and immigration.


title: Cato Institute

text: During the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Cato scholars criticized both major-party candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato has criticized President Obama's stances on policy issues such as fiscal stimulus, healthcare reform, foreign policy, and drug-related matters, while supporting his stance on the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the DREAM Act.


title: Cato Institute

text: Cato opposed Executive Order 13769, was enacted in January 2017, which decreased the number of refugees admitted into the United States and suspended entry to individuals whose countries do not meet adjudication standards under U.S. immigration law.


title: Cato Institute

text: The Cato Institute is classified as a 501(c)(3) organization under U.S. Internal Revenue Code. For revenue, the institute is largely dependent on private contributions and does not receive government funding. The Cato Institute reported fiscal year 2015 revenue of $37.3 million and expenses of $29.4 million. According to the organization's annual report, $32.1 million came from individual donors, $2.9 million came from foundations, $1.2 million came from program revenue and other income, and $1 million came from corporations.


title: Cato Institute

text: Sponsors of Cato have included FedEx, Google, CME Group and Whole Foods Market. "The Nation" reported support for Cato from the tobacco industry in a 2012 story.


title: Cato Institute

text: In 2011, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David Koch, Ed Crane, and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011. In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares. Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen's shares should first be offered to the board of the institute, and then to the remaining shareholders. Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P ... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement." Those who supported Cato's existing management rallied around the "Save Cato" banner, while those who supported the Koch brothers, called "For a Better Cato".


title: Cato Institute

text: In June 2012, Cato announced an agreement in principle to settle the dispute by changing the institute's governing structure. Under the agreement, a board replaced the shareholders and Crane, who at the time was also chief executive officer, retired. Former BB&T bank CEO John A. Allison IV replaced him. The Koch brothers agreed to drop two lawsuits.