That's not entirely accurate. It's enforceable law on the litigants party to the case - in this instance, the federal government and all 26 states. However, it - as a district Court decision - is only binding precedent in that District Court. In fact, other District courts in the same Circuit are not bound by Vinson's opinion. To them, and to all other District Courts, Vinson's opinion would be seen as persuasive, non-binding opinion.
The question about what it (Vinson's ruling) compells the federal government to do (or not to do) is a remarkably complicated one. I was (and am) a bit puzzled myself, and I have practiced law for more than a quarter century. I was heartened to hear every one of the esteemed law professors in yesterday's Senate hearings say the same things - it's complicated, and they haven't yet come to a conclusion. When I hear Randy Barnett say the same thing I would say, "I don't know", it feel pretty good.
What makes it so confusing? There are two other existing District Court opinions that came to the exact opposite conclusion on the exact same question of law, and on the exact same federal statute. My guess is that the fedgov will seek a stay of Vinson's ruling in the next several days (they have 14 days by FRCP), and that stay will most probably be granted by the 11th Circuit.
Ah, finally! Someone that can do more than repeat talking points. :-)
I understand the concept of binding precedent, although I didn't explain it very well. But, I don't understand how it can be enforceable law outside the district. It runs contrary to everything I've read about jurisdiction and venue.
How did the other states become party to the suit? I know about consolidation of multiple districts for pretrial proceedings, but that is supposed to push the actions back to their originating district courts. Would you point me to something authoritative that explains how this works?
I've also been trying to find the difference between declaratory judgments and injunctions, and despite all the claims (and citation) they are the effectively the same, they don't seem to be. Penalties for non-compliance is the big difference.
What makes it so confusing? There are two other existing District Court opinions that came to the exact opposite conclusion on the exact same question of law, and on the exact same federal statute.
This is what I thought was the exact reason for the rules about jurisdiction, venue, and scope. With 98 (?) districts and 12 circuits, you can't expect them all to agree all the time, and that's why we have the hierarchical system.
Of course, I think it's unrealistic to expect the Obama administration to comply with the ruling only in part of the country (whatever part that might be allowed). But, I wouldn't be surprised if they try.
Thanks. I have been scratching my head...that is the clearest explanation I have heard.