[Ken H]

Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

Is he using the term "stare decisis" to mean that lower courts must follow SCOTUS precedent? If so, is "stare decisis" the correct term for that constitutional requirement? (I've not never heard it used in that context before.)

______________________________________

If he was speaking of where the judicary's legal force is delegated, then he's not correct. Judicial interpretations carry legal force under Art. III, Sec. 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States,...

SCOTUS may or may not follow stare decisis, but stare decisis is not what gives legal force to their rulings.

[Ken H]

"I've not never heard..."

yikes.

[raygun]

Check it out at the Wiki: Law of the United States, scroll down to the Federal Law section there, and click the stare decisis link.