What happens when the US Supreme Court overturns a decision made by a lower court?

Answer 1

That depends on how much time has passed since the original precedent was set, and the consequences of the new ruling.

In a situation such as Brown v. Board of Education,(1954) overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine arising from Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), nothing can be done to rectify or redress past injustices. However, new precedents may effect indirect changes to other aspects of life.

For example, the foundation for Brown v. Board of Education, (1954), was laid by other, smaller, cases undermining (Jim Crow) laws. Morgan v. Virginia, 328 US 373 (1946), desegregated interstate travel on buses, trains, etc. Although the decision in Morgan was not based directly on civil right concerns, but on state segregation statutes unfairly burdening federal interstate commerce, the result was still a step toward making fuller integration a reality.

In a different type of example regarding the Court's apparently conflicting decisions on the constitutionality of capital punishment, the consolidated cases of Furman v. Georgia, 408 US 238 (1972) resulted in a (temporary) moratorium on juries imposing the death penalty because the Court was concerned that the sentence was being applied arbitrarily. In the Court's opinion, this constituted, in some instances, a violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of the decision in Furman, all inmates on death row had their sentences commuted to life.

A few years later, the decision in the consolidated cases of Gregg v. Georgia, 428 US 153 (1976), combined with changes to state sentencing laws, reaffirmed the Court's acceptance of capital punishment as constitutional under the 8th Amendment. While this allowed juries to resume imposing the death penalty where state and the law considered it appropriate, it did not convert the penalty reductions granted under Furman back into death sentences. So Furman retroactively changed the outcome for some prisoners, but Gregg did not.

The Supreme Court and the lower courts realize that precedent needs to be respected and considered very carefully in new decisions in order to prevent social and institutional chaos. This is one of the primary reasons the legal system relies on the doctrine of Stare decisis (Latin: Stare decisis et non quieta movere), meaning "let stand what has been decided." This principle compels lower courts to base decisions on precedents set by higher courts, with final judicial interpretation resting in the hands of the Supreme Court.

In addition to overruling its own decisions, the Supreme Court is also vulnerable to having precedents altered by Congress. While subsequent legislation in reaction to Supreme Court decisions can change future rulings so that there may be a conflict between older and newer decisions, the U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits ex post facto laws (laws applied retroactively), so new legislation wouldn't change the verdict in cases decided before the law was enacted.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court's decision becomes the rule of law, and the case may be remanded (returned) to the lower court for disposition.