Suspect it or not, it's the law. Consider the situation in the United States before the recent Michigan affirmative action case for college admissions as a case in point. Before the Supreme Court issued that ruling affirmative action-based admissions policies were illegal in some states but legal in others. The 5th Circuit for example struck down affirmative action for its states of jurisdiction (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi) at the exact same time that Michigan was using the affirmative action system that landed them in court. Why? Because 5th Circuit rulings apply to states within the 5th Circuit. Other circuit rulings apply to their own respective states. If two of them do not make the same rulings on something then to each circuit his own, meaning contradictory affirmative action policies may simultaneously exist. It can be banned for the University of Texas but legal for the University of Michigan at the exact same time, and for a period of time before the Sandra Day O'Conner invented the "right to diversity," this was exactly the case.
Note: Your meaning is clear, but technically Circuits are distinguished from Districts.
The situation that obtains is that two circuits disagree on their interpretation of some aspect of the Constitution. Something may be considered constitutional in one Circuit and unconstitutional in another. Obviously, at least one of them is incorrect. The law is interpreted differently in the two jurisdictions and future rulings will be based on those differing interpretations until the Supreme Court weighs in with its opinion, which could adopt that of either circuit, or determine neither is correct and impose its own opinion.
It is actually a fairly common manner in which an issue arrives at the Supreme Court.
Circuit Conflicts
Federal and state appellants typcially have, as a matter of right, one appeal to an intermediate appellate court. However, the highest courts in each jurisdiction -- the U.S. Supreme Court and most state supreme courts -- have discretionary review. That is, the losing side in the intermediate appellate court can petition the higher court for review, but the higher court is not required to take the case.
One factor most higher courts consider in deciding whether to take review is whether the intermediate appellate courts have split on the issue and reached different results. If so, there is a circuit conflict, and the higher court is more likely to grant review.
When a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issues a ruling that establishes a precedent, where is it considered “binding”?
A United States Circuit Court of Appeals ruling is binding only on the inferior courts within its jurisdiction, though the decisions can be “trend-setting” or influence the reasoning of other federal courts. For example, the decision of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit that interprets the Second Amendment of the Constitution to protect an individual, rather than collective, right to bear arms is only binding on the courts in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Similarly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has developed a reputation as a “rogue” or “trend-setting” court for its constitutional interpretations (e.g., the Pledge of Allegiance case).
Supreme Court agrees to hear U.S. v. Lara
From: Staff
Category: General Comment
Date: 12/3/2003
From Indianz.com
Wednesday, October 1, 2003
The U.S. Supreme Court announced on Tuesday that it will resolve whether tribal governments have inherent sovereignty over all American Indians, not just members of their own tribes.
In a case with national significance, the justices accepted an appeal filed by the Bush administration. The Department of Justice is arguing that dual tribal and federal prosecution of Indian offenders does not violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on double jeopardy.
The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded otherwise and said that an Indian man who pleaded guilty in tribal court could not be tried for the same offense in federal court. A divided panel of judges voted 7-4 in March to strike down a federal indictment against Billy Jo Lara on charges that he punched a police officer on the Spirit Lake Reservation in North Dakota.
But the 9th Circuit arrived at a different conclusion in June 2001. In an 11-0 decision that escaped review by the Supreme Court, a full panel of judges said tribes who prosecute members of other tribes are exercising sovereignty independent of the federal government.