Other government officials generally have only «qualified immunity» which means that they have liability if they intentionally violate clearly established law, which basically means that there is
a binding judicial precedent governing the facts and circumstances at issue.
Stare decisis is also defended on the ground that it increases the «perceived integrity of the
judicial process» by promoting the appearance of the rule of law.52 When courts cavalierly overrule their own
precedent, they may reduce the public's confidence in the view that judges are constrained by the principles of law they espouse.53 However, granting
binding precedential value to secret opinions fails to promote the appearance of the rule of law, precisely because these opinions are secret.