Abstract
Courts may reason using precedents in various ways, but not all of them satisfy the rule of law. This article provides two ways that are compatible with this ideal and one which is not. In doing so, the article aims to explain the practice of following precedent in law and to offer criteria for evaluating its value. Two claims are defended. First, courts always have a reason to decide precedent-governed disputes by following precedent. This reason is a minimum requirement of the rule of law, and in some cases this reason may be reinforced in the form of an obligation. Secondly, depending on whether courts have a reason or an obligation to follow precedent, two modes of precedential reasoning may be identified. The article explains them in detail. The modes, together with the considerations that are reasons in favour of them or against them, provide a valuable philosophical foundation of precedent-following in law.