Original post with additional images here: https://x.com/NuclearHerbs/status/1733181816948031575
It’s Friday already? Well, then. Welcome back to #PulseChainLawSchool
Today’s topic: When do Judges Have to Follow Other Court Rulings?
When a party files a motion, it will cite relevant law in support of its request, like in Picture 1 below from the Ripple case. Each individual point of law should be supported by a citation. This is so the judge can go look up the case and decide whether the point of law cited is relevant to the issue she has to decide, and whether she’s required to follow that court’s ruling or not.
I need to make something clear here: a judge might be required to follow the *principle* of law that was ruled on by a higher court. This does not mean that a case that looks identical to another on its surface must be decided the same way the last case was, and I’ll explain why below. Additionally, not every word in a court ruling is binding on a lower court. Let’s take a quick detour and explain that first.
It’s equally important to know not only what cases to read, but *how* to read those cases. This is why every 1L (shorthand for 1st year law students) spends most of their waking hours reading cases. Not because they want to, but the more you’re exposed to how judges write opinions, the more you understand why they’re written a certain way. Civilians are at an extreme disadvantage here, which is partly why journalists and non-lawyer pundits fuck up so spectacularly when asked to comment on a recent ruling. But it’s not really that hard to understand, it’s just that regular people lack the specialized training that lawyers get. Just like in accounting, medicine, architecture, coding, or any other profession, lawyers have a way of communicating that isn’t instantly recognizable to someone who hasn’t gone through law school, and that is reflected in court opinions.
For example, there is both “holding” and “dicta” in court opinions. If you look at a typical SCOTUS opinion that’s well over 100 pages, not all of it binds lower courts. Sometimes, the justices need to explain things in order to get their point across, or bring up something outside the case to explain what they mean. The “holding” part of a court opinion is when the court states something that is necessary to decide a case. Take DC vs Heller, probably the most famous 2nd Amendment case ever decided. To save you a lot of reading, it interpreted the second amendment and held that it protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm. SCOTUS often does nice things for you, like writing a big-ass heading called “HELD” and then explaining what its holding is.
Most courts don’t. So, what’s on the rest of the 154 pages? A lot of useful stuff, a lot of which isn’t binding on lower courts. Some of this is called “dictum” (singular) or “dicta” (plural) which is, of course, Latin so lawyers sound smart. What it basically translates to is “things said in passing,” although it’s often far more significant than that, especially when SCOTUS goes through the trouble of writing out a whole bunch of it.
Think of it this way: Your completely sober friend tells your drunk ass not to take a particular girl home from the bar because he knows her UFC champion boyfriend will beat your face into powder if you do. It’s good advice you’re free to disregard, but you disregard it at your own risk. If SCOTUS is talking about something it’s not directly deciding, but it’s implying what lower courts should do if it analyzes that issue in the future, it’s probably a good idea to consider that advice carefully.
Moving on.
You have to think about two things in a legal case – what the facts are and what the controlling law is. In two seemingly identical cases, you can have the same law apply (like last week’s discussion on negligence and its elements), but even one simple fact can change the outcome when the judge applies the facts to the controlling law.
Example. Remember poor grandma who got run over last week and sued the driver for negligence? Let’s change one fact. Let’s say that Grandma had been hit by another car the day before. Because of this, Grandma’s doctor was unable to state to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty” that Grandma’s injuries were from today’s accident as opposed to yesterday’s. As a result, Grandma can’t prove causation, (the third required element of negligence we discussed) and her entire negligence claim fails. The law didn’t change, and the judge was bound to use the same legal principles (i.e. the same 4 elements) decided by higher courts, but the facts changed and that made all the difference. Grandma’s family can be as outraged as they want, and it may seem unfair that Grandma gets kicked to the curb (where, with her luck, she’ll probably get run over again), but the court can’t make changes to the law decided by higher courts. If this was a legal principle stated by the court of appeals that this judge applied, it can review Grandma’s case on appeal and change the law it made if appropriate to include cases like Grandma’s in the future. But that’s rare because courts apply the principle of “stare decisis” (more Latin) which basically means “let the decision stand,” because regular people and lawyers need the law to be consistently applied over time or else shit gets chaotic. When asked by clients what the law is, lawyers really don’t want to answer “how the hell should I know” because then clients think courts decide based on spinning the wheel-o-justice (pictured below) or rolling dice or whatever. That doesn’t make a client want to fork over a 5-figure retainer.
So, when is following a higher court mandatory and when is it optional?
*Disclaimer* This discussion is limited to FEDERAL Courts deciding FEDERAL issues of law – the rules would be different if a federal court was deciding a state issue in federal court. Understanding intricate matrices like the one discussed below (or *infra* if you need some more Latin) is one of myriad reasons why law school takes 3 years to complete. The rest of the time consists of reading cases, being poor, and drinking until you pass out.
Some holdings are “binding,” meaning that if the particular issue of law has already been determined by a court directly above them, it is mandatory that they follow that court’s holding on the principle of law. Example: If the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decides an issue, then the Eastern District of New York (EDNY) (Richard’s case) court is bound by their opinion because it’s within the group of federal courts covered by the 2nd Circuit. This is the reason lawyers spend so much time arguing what most people see as inconsequential or insignificant points. Distinguishing the facts in their case from another case might be the only way they can convince the judge to rule in their favor.
Some holdings are “persuasive,” meaning that the judge has the discretion to adopt the reasoning and outcome or not. Example: The SDNY makes a ruling on an issue. The EDNY is not bound to rule the same way because the Federal District Court judges are on equal footing with each other. This is also why different circuit courts decide the same issue differently, and two (or more) contradictory opinions by circuit courts often lead to SCOTUS taking the case and deciding it for everyone. Example: A decision on an issue issued by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is not binding on a lower court in the 2nd Circuit, even if the issue is identical to the one being decided.
State Court opinions on federal issues, even ones issued by appellate or supreme courts of a state, are not binding on any federal court. Similarly, federal court opinions are not binding on state courts, with the exception of US Supreme Court opinions, which are binding in all courts everywhere.
So, in RH’s case, here’s how it will look:
Holdings in cases are binding, not dicta.
SCOTUS holdings on an issue are binding on EDNY and every other court everywhere.
2nd Circuit holdings on an issue bind EDNY.
Rulings by other federal courts, including appellate courts, are not binding on EDNY. However, federal judges often adopt the reasoning of other federal judges.
And finally, no state court opinions are binding on EDNY in RH’s case because the issues being decided are Federal, not state.
What does this mean for RH? Let’s say that he argues a point of law identical to one argued by Ripple. Because that was a SDNY judge who decided that case, the EDNY judge has the discretion to either adopt the SDNY’s reasoning or decide it another way. However, if the legal principle used by SDNY was already ruled on by either the 2nd Circuit or SCOTUS, the court is bound to analyze the issue under that holding.
Either way, the FACTS presented will make all the difference.
Standard disclaimer: Nothing I say is legal advice.
