Answer:
Stare decisis is a legal principle that refers to the practice of courts adhering to precedent and making decisions based on previous rulings. In the case of Matal v. Tam (2017), stare decisis played a role in determining the outcome because the Court was asked to consider the constitutionality of a provision of the Lanham Act that prohibited the registration of trademarks that were considered disparaging or offensive. The Court's decision was influenced by previous cases, including those that dealt with the First Amendment and the government's ability to regulate speech.
In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Court was asked to consider whether the state of Maryland had the power to tax a branch of the Second Bank of the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall, writing for the Court, held that the Constitution granted Congress the power to create a national bank and that Maryland could not interfere with that power. This decision established the principle of federal supremacy, which holds that federal law takes precedence over state law.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919) dealt with the First Amendment and the government's ability to regulate speech during wartime. In this case, the Court upheld the conviction of Charles Schenck, who had been charged with violating the Espionage Act by distributing anti-war pamphlets. The Court held that speech could be restricted if it posed a "clear and present danger" to the country.
In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Court was asked to consider whether the Lanham Act's prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. The Court held that it did, relying on the principle of stare decisis and previous cases dealing with the First Amendment and government regulation of speech. The Court noted that the principle of federal supremacy established in McCulloch v. Maryland applied to the First Amendment as well, and that the government could not restrict speech simply because it found it offensive or disparaging.
Overall, the role of stare decisis in Matal v. Tam was to provide a framework for the Court's decision-making process and to ensure that previous rulings were taken into account when making decisions about the constitutionality of laws and regulations.