Suppose someone is challenging a given law or court ruling on such-and-such basis. It gets up to the SC, which does not accept the case. The SC could refuse a case for various reasons, but one big one is that they think the basis for the appeal is invalid and not worthy of their time.
Question is: does this carry any weight (even if non-binding)? Does a different lower court judge tend to think “hey, this principle must be solidly grounded or the SC would have taken up the opportunity to reject it, so I can feel comfortable in using it as the basis for my ruling? Would a lawyer raise such a fact in arguments? Or is that fact completely moot, and the judge treats it like any other legal principle which has been accepted by an appeals court but has not gone to the SC altogether?
“A simple order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari is not designed to reflect the Court’s views either as to the merits of the case or as to its jurisdiction to hear the matter.” – Supreme Court Practice: Jurisdiction, Procedure, Arguing and Briefing Techniques, Forms, Statues, Rules for Practice in the Supreme Court of the United States
Officially, no weight whatsoever.
Especially since, if the denial order doesn’t contain extensive reasoning (akin to a full opinion), you can’t assume there’s an underlying pseudo-precedential legal principle to seize on. You’re not supposed to read into a denial of certiorari the way that economists read into the minutes of the Federal Reserve Board’s meetings.
ETA: IANAL, but it’s right there in black in white. Maybe a lawyer can talk about the parts in grey, which I’m not qualified to see.
No weight different than if neither party appealed the lower ruling. In either case, the decision below is binding - either/both on the parties and w/in the lower court’s jurisdiction.
This is correct. And raising the issue as the OP suggests – that the Supreme Court would have found a way to grant the writ – would likely get the attorney a scolding by the District Court or the Court of Appeals.
I guess the point too is that a lot of cases get appealed to the SC. They pick based on criteria that relate to the whole country, not how offended they are by miscarriages of justice. As I understand, one of the strongest criteria is if two different circuits have conflicting rulings on similar issues. Another is how important the precedent would be for society as a whole. The most important criteria is… nobody knows. they pick and choose for their own reasons that have nothing to do with what we think.
If a lower court decides something, that’s binding, at least for the jurisdiction of that court, and precedential for other courts. If it doesn’t (for whatever reason) go to a higher court, then that’s where it stands.
If it’s appealed, then the Supreme Court can take the case, and affirm the lower court, and now it’s binding on the entire nation. Or they can take the case, and reverse the lower court, and now it’s not binding on anyone. Or they can not take it, and maintain the status quo.
*snip. Correct. The failure to grant cert on your case does not even suggest that your case was wrong or even terribly wrong (or right or wonderfully right). Fewer than 1% of cases presented to the SC are granted every year and the fact that they didn’t take your just meant it failed one of their unknown criteria. To make such an argument to a lower court judge would probably get you a lecture or at least make you look foolish in the judge’s eye.
Same in Canada. I’ve been in court when opposing counsel cited a case and suggested it had extra authority as precedent, because the SCC had denied leave.
The trial judge politely told counsel that just meant the SCC had decided not to hear the appeal, nothing more.
I came to say just this. Just in my recent memory are cases the SC denied because it was generally understood that there was a camel outside your tent, and he has a long nose. It could be “We already told you once” to “Worms, Earth, barrel, 1 each.”
Or somebody lost a round of Rock - Paper - Scissors - Lizard - Spock.
No one gets to tell the Supreme Court what they meant other than the Supreme Court. Their power, once invoked by appeal process is not subject to review by other authority. The court itself may limit the application of prior judgements, or even reverse itself. The Congress may rewrite the laws which were ruled upon. The President may pout, or even have a tantrum.