Across the land within their circuit, over matters within their jurisdiction. Elsewhere the ruling is merely advisory in nature. It gets tricky with nationwide

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.