3 ms·

You are correct that they didn't rule on it. But they did write an opinion that was highly suggestive of what the particular finding in this case should have be

You are correct that they didn't rule on it. But they did write an opinion that was highly suggestive of what the particular finding in this case should have been. It doesn't carry the weight of law, but it isn't nothing, either.

elizabeth_olu 8y ago
www.elizabethblog.com.ng
da_chicken 8y ago
Oh, definitely. It was a minimal ruling, but it's still a landmark. Honestly, though, this case is so perfect that I almost wonder if the Supreme Court of Indiana didn't rule the way they did just to force the issue.
- jecxjo 8y ago
  The more I follow SCOTUS rulings the more I think this happens quite often.
  - rhizome 8y ago
    There's a thing called "forcing a circuit split," which is a precondition for SCOTUS cert, but AFAIK it's usually a strategy by parties to a case (see: forced-birth organizations), not judges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split
- clucas 8y ago
  That's roughly what they did, though they also said "hey, we're the Supreme Court of this state, and we're not just going to give it to them." Here is the money shot from the Indiana Supreme Court opinion: > A second option is to await guidance from the Supreme Court and decline to find or assume incorporation until the Supreme Court decides the issue authoritatively. We choose this latter, more cautious approach for two reasons. First, although the Supreme Court has addressed this issue only in dicta, its statement in McDonald that the Clause has not been incorporated is entitled to more weight because it is the Court’s most recent. Second, Indiana is a sovereign state within our federal system, and we elect not to impose federal obligations on the State that the federal government itself has not mandated. An important corollary is that Indiana has its own system of legal, including constitutional, protections for its citizens and other persons within its jurisdiction. Absent a definitive holding from the Supreme Court, we decline to subject Indiana to a federal test that may operate to impede development of our own excessive-fines jurisprudence under the Indiana Constitution.
dragonwriter 8y ago
It does, in fact, carry the weight of law (not just in the instant case but in every case to which it's ruling is applicable in every US federal and state court at every level, other than the US Supreme Court itself.) It isn't, on its own, a final judgment on the case, but that doesn't mean it lacks force of law.

elizabeth_olu 8y ago

www.elizabethblog.com.ng

da_chicken 8y ago

Oh, definitely. It was a minimal ruling, but it's still a landmark. Honestly, though, this case is so perfect that I almost wonder if the Supreme Court of Indiana didn't rule the way they did just to force the issue.

jecxjo 8y ago
The more I follow SCOTUS rulings the more I think this happens quite often.
- rhizome 8y ago
  There's a thing called "forcing a circuit split," which is a precondition for SCOTUS cert, but AFAIK it's usually a strategy by parties to a case (see: forced-birth organizations), not judges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_split
clucas 8y ago
That's roughly what they did, though they also said "hey, we're the Supreme Court of this state, and we're not just going to give it to them." Here is the money shot from the Indiana Supreme Court opinion: > A second option is to await guidance from the Supreme Court and decline to find or assume incorporation until the Supreme Court decides the issue authoritatively. We choose this latter, more cautious approach for two reasons. First, although the Supreme Court has addressed this issue only in dicta, its statement in McDonald that the Clause has not been incorporated is entitled to more weight because it is the Court’s most recent. Second, Indiana is a sovereign state within our federal system, and we elect not to impose federal obligations on the State that the federal government itself has not mandated. An important corollary is that Indiana has its own system of legal, including constitutional, protections for its citizens and other persons within its jurisdiction. Absent a definitive holding from the Supreme Court, we decline to subject Indiana to a federal test that may operate to impede development of our own excessive-fines jurisprudence under the Indiana Constitution.

dragonwriter 8y ago

It does, in fact, carry the weight of law (not just in the instant case but in every case to which it's ruling is applicable in every US federal and state court at every level, other than the US Supreme Court itself.) It isn't, on its own, a final judgment on the case, but that doesn't mean it lacks force of law.