4 ms·

Is that how really circuit court rulings get applied? I always understood each ruling on the rungs up the ladder to the supreme court applied across the land u

Is that how really circuit court rulings get applied? I always understood each ruling on the rungs up the ladder to the supreme court applied across the land until a final ruling was determined.

jcranmer 7y ago
Circuit court rulings are usually only binding precedent within their district. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over certain subject matters (e.g., patents), so it's supposed to follow appropriate precedent for stuff outside its remit and its precedent is binding on everybody for stuff inside its remit. That said, it is not unusual for a court to look to rulings in other jurisdictions to decide a matter if there is no binding precedent in place. They are not required to, however.
beerandt 7y ago
Across the land within their circuit, over matters within their jurisdiction. Elsewhere the ruling is merely advisory in nature. It gets tricky with nationwide actors though. Besides some specialized topics like patents and international trade, nationwide orders and injunctions are the sort-of exception, which are based on a courts local jurisdictional power over a non-local nationwide actor. I'm not sure what the generalized name of the principle (beyond injunctions) is called (I've heard it as a type of jurisdictional overreach), but the presumption as applied here is that LinkedIn, being in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction, also adhere to the ruling outside the circuit, absent a contradictory ruling by a different circuit. (One of the usual requirements for the Supreme Court to even hear a case is that different circuits have conflicting rulings on a matter.) But it looks like the Supreme Court is about to seriously reign that nationwide power back soon, at least for judges issuing orders to departments/actors of the executive branch.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > One of the usual requirements for the Supreme Court to even hear a case is that different circuits have conflicting rulings on a matter. That's not a “usual requirement”, it's one of many factors that can weigh in favor of the Supreme Court exercising discretionary appellate jurisdiction (and it's one that weighs very heavily in favor of it, even when no other favorable factors are present, since federal law meaning the same thing everywhere is an important principle.)
  - beerandt 7y ago
    Well of course that's what I meant by "usual requirement." How else would one read it? :)

Is that how really circuit court rulings get applied? I always understood each ruling on the rungs up the ladder to the supreme court applied across the land until a final ruling was determined.

jcranmer 7y ago

Circuit court rulings are usually only binding precedent within their district. However, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over certain subject matters (e.g., patents), so it's supposed to follow appropriate precedent for stuff outside its remit and its precedent is binding on everybody for stuff inside its remit. That said, it is not unusual for a court to look to rulings in other jurisdictions to decide a matter if there is no binding precedent in place. They are not required to, however.

beerandt 7y ago

Across the land within their circuit, over matters within their jurisdiction. Elsewhere the ruling is merely advisory in nature. It gets tricky with nationwide actors though. Besides some specialized topics like patents and international trade, nationwide orders and injunctions are the sort-of exception, which are based on a courts local jurisdictional power over a non-local nationwide actor. I'm not sure what the generalized name of the principle (beyond injunctions) is called (I've heard it as a type of jurisdictional overreach), but the presumption as applied here is that LinkedIn, being in the 9th circuit's jurisdiction, also adhere to the ruling outside the circuit, absent a contradictory ruling by a different circuit. (One of the usual requirements for the Supreme Court to even hear a case is that different circuits have conflicting rulings on a matter.) But it looks like the Supreme Court is about to seriously reign that nationwide power back soon, at least for judges issuing orders to departments/actors of the executive branch.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> One of the usual requirements for the Supreme Court to even hear a case is that different circuits have conflicting rulings on a matter. That's not a “usual requirement”, it's one of many factors that can weigh in favor of the Supreme Court exercising discretionary appellate jurisdiction (and it's one that weighs very heavily in favor of it, even when no other favorable factors are present, since federal law meaning the same thing everywhere is an important principle.)
- beerandt 7y ago
  Well of course that's what I meant by "usual requirement." How else would one read it? :)