4 ms·

Can someone with some legal knowledge explain what the process is for a legal precedent to be undone? What does a 'petition' to rehear a case actually mean? Is

Can someone with some legal knowledge explain what the process is for a legal precedent to be undone? What does a 'petition' to rehear a case actually mean? Is that a thing that might feasibly happen?

brightball 9y ago
I've always wondered about this too. What happens when precedent is set either by faulty cases or people with agendas?
- yason 9y ago
  Or non-significant early cases where the stakes aren't too high and rulings that will lead the path to precedence can vary.
- icebraining 9y ago
  Wikipedia's article is fairly complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent TL;DR: Precedent is binding to court where it was set and "below". To overrule it, you generally must appeal until you reach the level above where it was set. IANAL.
- ensignavenger 9y ago
  The supreme court can overturn precedent. They are not bound to follow the precedent of previous supreme court rulings. They don't do this lightly or particularly often, though.
  - Pinckney 9y ago
    How do appeals work with circuit splits? Suppose I lose a case, appeal to the supreme court, and am rejected. Years later, a different case in a different circuit reaches a contradictory conclusion, but the losing side declines to appeal. Can I now re-appeal to the supreme court in light of the split, or am I SOL?
    - schoen 9y ago
      You need to have a current case in order to appeal it. (Indeed, you need to have had a sufficiently recent adverse decision of an appropriate kind in your case in order to appeal it.)
cavanasm 9y ago
I don't have the kind of expertise you're asking for, but judging by the letter, it seems the EFF is asking for the decision to be re-heard because the court completely IGNORED legal precedent in their decision. The petition to rehear the case is a request to have the full circuit hear the case. Initially, it's only a group of 3 judges from the circuit who decide a case.
vinceguidry 9y ago
I don't think it's usually done because it's easier to just find another case. But here, the nature of government secrecy makes new cases hard to find.
rayiner 9y ago
Ordinarily, federal appellate courts (like the Ninth Circuit here) decide cases using randomly assigned panels of three judges. A decision of a panel is binding precedent on future cases in the same circuit (both as to future panel cases and all trial court cases). Within a certain time after issuance of a panel decision, the parties can seek rehearing—either by the same panel, or an “en banc” court of all the judges in the circuit.[1] Petitions for rehearing are not granted routinely, but reasonably frequently. Probably better odds than seeking Supreme Court review if you’ve got a case where there is no circuit split (disagreement among different courts of appeals). The judges in the court all receive the rehearing petition, and they can vote to rehear the case. If a majority think the case is important and the panel got it wrong, they’ll grant rehearing, in which case the case will be argued again in front of the whole court. One important thing is that a panel can rehear it’s own decision, but can not overturn the ruling of a previous panel in another case. An en banc court can overrule any of the court’s prior precedents. [1] Except the ninth circuit, which is so big and geographically dispersed an en banc Court is something less than the whole court.
- bluGill 9y ago
  One reason the supreme court doesn't like to hear cases unless there is a split is they know they are the final word. If the supreme court takes a case they have to come up with the right answer for all cases because if they are wrong - even in one subtle non-obvious point - their wrong answer will be forced on all lower courts for that situation. If a situation that all lower courts are getting "right", then there is no need for them to think about it, the lower courts are all getting the same answer, and the lower courts are all made up of smart people who have thought about it. If there is a situation where the lower courts do not agree - that means smart people have thought about the issue and do not agree, thus they need to think very hard about this situation to come up with a perfect answer. Perfection is hard of course, so they generally narrow the scope of what their decisions cover until only the minimum possible scope is covered thus ensuring there is less room for a subtle situation where they are wrong.

brightball 9y ago

I've always wondered about this too. What happens when precedent is set either by faulty cases or people with agendas?

yason 9y ago
Or non-significant early cases where the stakes aren't too high and rulings that will lead the path to precedence can vary.
icebraining 9y ago
Wikipedia's article is fairly complete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent TL;DR: Precedent is binding to court where it was set and "below". To overrule it, you generally must appeal until you reach the level above where it was set. IANAL.
ensignavenger 9y ago
The supreme court can overturn precedent. They are not bound to follow the precedent of previous supreme court rulings. They don't do this lightly or particularly often, though.
- Pinckney 9y ago
  How do appeals work with circuit splits? Suppose I lose a case, appeal to the supreme court, and am rejected. Years later, a different case in a different circuit reaches a contradictory conclusion, but the losing side declines to appeal. Can I now re-appeal to the supreme court in light of the split, or am I SOL?
  - schoen 9y ago
    You need to have a current case in order to appeal it. (Indeed, you need to have had a sufficiently recent adverse decision of an appropriate kind in your case in order to appeal it.)

cavanasm 9y ago

I don't have the kind of expertise you're asking for, but judging by the letter, it seems the EFF is asking for the decision to be re-heard because the court completely IGNORED legal precedent in their decision. The petition to rehear the case is a request to have the full circuit hear the case. Initially, it's only a group of 3 judges from the circuit who decide a case.

vinceguidry 9y ago

I don't think it's usually done because it's easier to just find another case. But here, the nature of government secrecy makes new cases hard to find.

rayiner 9y ago

Ordinarily, federal appellate courts (like the Ninth Circuit here) decide cases using randomly assigned panels of three judges. A decision of a panel is binding precedent on future cases in the same circuit (both as to future panel cases and all trial court cases). Within a certain time after issuance of a panel decision, the parties can seek rehearing—either by the same panel, or an “en banc” court of all the judges in the circuit.[1] Petitions for rehearing are not granted routinely, but reasonably frequently. Probably better odds than seeking Supreme Court review if you’ve got a case where there is no circuit split (disagreement among different courts of appeals). The judges in the court all receive the rehearing petition, and they can vote to rehear the case. If a majority think the case is important and the panel got it wrong, they’ll grant rehearing, in which case the case will be argued again in front of the whole court. One important thing is that a panel can rehear it’s own decision, but can not overturn the ruling of a previous panel in another case. An en banc court can overrule any of the court’s prior precedents. [1] Except the ninth circuit, which is so big and geographically dispersed an en banc Court is something less than the whole court.

bluGill 9y ago
One reason the supreme court doesn't like to hear cases unless there is a split is they know they are the final word. If the supreme court takes a case they have to come up with the right answer for all cases because if they are wrong - even in one subtle non-obvious point - their wrong answer will be forced on all lower courts for that situation. If a situation that all lower courts are getting "right", then there is no need for them to think about it, the lower courts are all getting the same answer, and the lower courts are all made up of smart people who have thought about it. If there is a situation where the lower courts do not agree - that means smart people have thought about the issue and do not agree, thus they need to think very hard about this situation to come up with a perfect answer. Perfection is hard of course, so they generally narrow the scope of what their decisions cover until only the minimum possible scope is covered thus ensuring there is less room for a subtle situation where they are wrong.