What are examples of lower courts not following Supreme Court precedent?
November 14, 2022 12:23 PM Subscribe
What are examples of circuit courts refusing to abide by Supreme Court precedent when making decisions? (Especially examples where the Supreme Court subsequently agreed with the circuit court decision and reversed its own decision.)
This page has examples of when the Supreme Court overturned its own previous decisions. In theory, lower courts should have been following the previous precedent until the new Supreme Court decision overturned that decision.
Are there examples where lower courts stopped following the precedent before the Supreme Court overturned it? This could include examples where the renegade courts were then shot down by the Supreme Court or where lower courts failing to follow mandatory authority were followed up by the court overturning the previous case. Thanks!
This page has examples of when the Supreme Court overturned its own previous decisions. In theory, lower courts should have been following the previous precedent until the new Supreme Court decision overturned that decision.
Are there examples where lower courts stopped following the precedent before the Supreme Court overturned it? This could include examples where the renegade courts were then shot down by the Supreme Court or where lower courts failing to follow mandatory authority were followed up by the court overturning the previous case. Thanks!
Here is a classic example, though not an example where the SC subsequently agreed with the circuit court decision: https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/1992/jul/15/supreme-court-chides-ninth-circuit-on-delays-in-harris-execution/. In the Harris case, the Supreme Court got so frustrated with the Ninth Circuit repeatedly staying a prisoner's execution without a solid legal basis, that the Supreme Court actually issued an order that no lower court could stay the execution any further - only the Supreme Court could do so.
posted by slide at 1:36 PM on November 14, 2022
posted by slide at 1:36 PM on November 14, 2022
In Canada, the 1987 Alberta Reference decision of the Supreme Court had held that freedom of association did not protect the right to collective bargaining or the right to strike. The Chief Justice at the time wrote a great dissent that set the stage for the development of labour law since then, and his view at that time is essentially the point the Court is at right now.
For example, twenty years later, in Health Services the SCC held that freedom of association protected collective bargaining, and in 2015's Saskatchewan Federation of Labour it held that freedom of association protects the right to strike.
In the latter case, the SCC wrote:
[27] The trial judge in this case relied on changes in this Court’s s. 2(d) jurisprudence to depart from the precedent set by the majority in the Alberta Reference.
[...]
[32] Given the fundamental shift in the scope of s. 2(d) since the Alberta Reference was decided, the trial judge was entitled to depart from precedent and consider the issue in accordance with this Court’s revitalized interpretation of s. 2(d): Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, at para. 42.
posted by hepta at 2:41 PM on November 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
For example, twenty years later, in Health Services the SCC held that freedom of association protected collective bargaining, and in 2015's Saskatchewan Federation of Labour it held that freedom of association protects the right to strike.
In the latter case, the SCC wrote:
[27] The trial judge in this case relied on changes in this Court’s s. 2(d) jurisprudence to depart from the precedent set by the majority in the Alberta Reference.
[...]
[32] Given the fundamental shift in the scope of s. 2(d) since the Alberta Reference was decided, the trial judge was entitled to depart from precedent and consider the issue in accordance with this Court’s revitalized interpretation of s. 2(d): Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101, at para. 42.
posted by hepta at 2:41 PM on November 14, 2022 [1 favorite]
There is something like this going on right now. Perhaps it's the motivation for your ask.
SCOTUS handed down a decision saying that the Second Amendment should be interpreted based on history and tradition. This was total BS because historians don't necessarily all have the same interpretation of the meaning of long ago events, and traditions vary from place to place. I believe that some lower courts have basically said hey, we can't work with this. At least one has considered hiring an historian.
Some of the discontent and confusion is going bubble up to SCOTUS, and they will have to reconsider their decision.
IANAL, so pardon my lack of lawyerly acumen.
posted by SemiSalt at 5:41 AM on November 15, 2022
SCOTUS handed down a decision saying that the Second Amendment should be interpreted based on history and tradition. This was total BS because historians don't necessarily all have the same interpretation of the meaning of long ago events, and traditions vary from place to place. I believe that some lower courts have basically said hey, we can't work with this. At least one has considered hiring an historian.
Some of the discontent and confusion is going bubble up to SCOTUS, and they will have to reconsider their decision.
IANAL, so pardon my lack of lawyerly acumen.
posted by SemiSalt at 5:41 AM on November 15, 2022
Response by poster: I believe that some lower courts have basically said hey, we can't work with this. At least one has considered hiring an historian.
This would be very helpful. Do you remember where you saw this or what court decision it was? I would like to read more about this. Thanks!
posted by andoatnp at 11:36 AM on November 15, 2022
This would be very helpful. Do you remember where you saw this or what court decision it was? I would like to read more about this. Thanks!
posted by andoatnp at 11:36 AM on November 15, 2022
Best answer: I hope that I have not started you on a wild goose chase. It could be that my remark about "we can't deal with us" is only my impression of how the District and Circuit Courts are responding.
The SCOTUS case is NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. It gets called Bruen for short. It was handed down in October 2001.
One place to keep track of the resulting legislation is the Armed Scholar YouTube channel. The guy isn't the slickest content creator around, but I think he is competent on the facts and the state of play. His primary purpose is to keep gun owners informed of their rights and informed about changes that may come down. It's not a law blog for lawyers. He did mention history and tradition about 5 minutes into a recent post "An End To The "Assault Weapon" And Magazine Capacity Ban!!!"
The case where a judge considered hiring an historian is explained here.
posted by SemiSalt at 3:41 PM on November 15, 2022
The SCOTUS case is NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN, SUPERINTENDENT OF NEW YORK STATE POLICE, ET AL. It gets called Bruen for short. It was handed down in October 2001.
One place to keep track of the resulting legislation is the Armed Scholar YouTube channel. The guy isn't the slickest content creator around, but I think he is competent on the facts and the state of play. His primary purpose is to keep gun owners informed of their rights and informed about changes that may come down. It's not a law blog for lawyers. He did mention history and tradition about 5 minutes into a recent post "An End To The "Assault Weapon" And Magazine Capacity Ban!!!"
The case where a judge considered hiring an historian is explained here.
posted by SemiSalt at 3:41 PM on November 15, 2022
Best answer: This article may be of interest. https://www.scotusblog.com/2016/10/legal-scholarship-highlight-when-lower-courts-dont-follow-supreme-court-precedent/
posted by SemiSalt at 4:08 PM on November 15, 2022
posted by SemiSalt at 4:08 PM on November 15, 2022
Worcester v. Georgia, regarding the rights of the Cherokee.
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that American Indian nations were "distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights," and entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments that infringed on their sovereignty. Worcester v. Georgia is considered one of the most important dicta in law dealing with Native Americans.
President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with disastrous results
posted by blob at 8:41 PM on November 16, 2022
In Worcester v. Georgia (1832), the US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that American Indian nations were "distinct, independent political communities retaining their original natural rights," and entitled to federal protection from the actions of state governments that infringed on their sovereignty. Worcester v. Georgia is considered one of the most important dicta in law dealing with Native Americans.
President Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Court's ruling with disastrous results
posted by blob at 8:41 PM on November 16, 2022
This thread is closed to new comments.
Would Elonis vs US (2015) be one of them? SCOTUS basically said the lower courts did apply the law as it reads, but the law was criminal law, but set the standards low like civil law, so the law as written was not valid.
TL;DR -- Elonis, after a divorce, used Facebook, under a screename, posted explicit rap lyrics containing graphically violent language and imagery concerning his wife, co-workers, a kindergarten class, and state and federal law enforcement. They were sometimes accompanied by disclaimers where he's merely exercising his first amendment rights and were meant to be "fictitious" and does not refer to any real persons. However, everyone who knew him regarded the posts as threatening. He got fired from the job, his wife got a protective order, and then the FBI eventually arrested Elonis and charged him with 11 USC 875(c), which prohibits transmitting threats over interstate commerce (i.e. Internet). At trial, Elonis requested jury instruction that to convict him requires that he had made a "true threat", but District Court's instruction was "if a reasonable person would regard that as a threat". SCOTUS majority stated that intent is important here, and threat should include mental state evaluation for intent, as should criminal laws. ("a reasonable person would" is more like civil liability law) The dissenting minority wondered if "recklessness" should be a part of the factor. As a result, the conviction was overturned and remanded back to Third Circuit.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-983_7l48.pdf
posted by kschang at 12:56 PM on November 14, 2022