Final answer:
A lower court is indeed required to follow the precedent of a higher court in its jurisdiction, adhering to the legal principle of stare decisis to ensure consistency in the application of the law.
Step-by-step explanation:
The statement that a court of lower rank must follow the precedent of a higher court in its jurisdiction is true. In the United States legal system, which operates under the common law tradition, this principle is known as stare decisis, meaning "to stand by things decided." Courts within the same jurisdiction are bound by this principle to ensure consistency and stability in the law. For instance, if a case is appealed, the district court must follow the precedents set by the circuit courts of appeals, and both the district and circuit courts must adhere to the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court.
While precedent is generally followed, it is not absolute. There are instances where higher courts may overturn their own precedents as exemplified by cases that have significant differences or when societal values have evolved. Nevertheless, the role of precedent is to steer and build upon the existing legal framework, thereby providing guidance for future rulings.