The relationship between legal precedent and social change is a central tension in jurisprudence. On one hand, the principle of stare decisis—standing by things decided—provides stability and predictability in the law. It ensures that similar cases are treated similarly, which is a key component of fairness. On the other hand, the law must be able to adapt to changing social values and new understandings of justice. If courts were strictly bound by every past decision, legal progress would be impossible, and injustices of the past could be frozen into the law forever. The challenge for the judiciary is to determine when a precedent has become so outdated or harmful that it must be overruled. This process requires a careful balancing of the need for stability with the demands of a changing society. While some argue that all social changes should be left to the legislature, the courts have a unique role in protecting minority rights that may be ignored by a political majority. Overruling precedent should be a rare and deliberate act, but it is a necessary one for a legal system that aspires to true justice. A law that cannot change is a law that will eventually lose its legitimacy.