Question on precedent

[Rastoff]

Since this is a procedural question, I think it belongs here.

Does the ruling in Duncan v Becerra set a precedent that can be used in another case?

[enegue]

It’s not binding precedent. It can be referenced in another case but it’s not binding which means it will have little affect everywhere else.

[Christopher761]

Not binding, but the Injunction is binding until it is stayed, modified or struck down.

If you wanted to use this in a fight against a local municipal code which bans magazines, you could make the exact same arguments, but the Judge is not required to make the same ruling.

[TFA777]

Is it binding in the 2nd circuit though?

[Citadelgrad87]

Is it binding in the 2nd circuit though?

No. It can be cited as guidance, here is what the 9th circuit is doing, just like another trial court ruling holding the opposite can be cited.

No other trial judge is bound by this as precedent except in further proceedings on this particular case, for example, if J Benitez for some reason was no longer the judge on this case.

[Librarian]

Is it binding in the 2nd circuit though?

The reasoning is not binding even on another judge in the southern district of CA, as Citadelgrad notes.

And since it addresses only CA law, it is not 'binding' on the rest of the 9th Circuit, either. But its effect - the enjoinment of enforcement of PC 32310 - is not restricted to just the Southern District of CA, it's all of CA.

For an opinion to be binding in the 2nd District Circuit Court (CT, VT, NY) it would have to be a 2nd District opinion, or a SCOTUS opinion.

[Cortelli]

As others have noted, not binding the way most hope it would be binding (everywhere forevermore).

But the opinion is very valuable, IMHO. Among other things, taking apart some of the claims from purported expert witnesses who testified or were cited in this case (and who testify / are cited in lots of cases) is a huge win (again, IMHO). The argument as to why strict scrutiny is appropriate, etc. Lots of powerful work in the opinion.

EDIT: To be clear, the points I am pointing out are valuable are also not binding on anyone -- but they are powerful sign posts to other judges that may not have scrutinized some of the data / thoughts shared by the states' experts the way Judge Benitez has done.

[Non Political Californian]

1) It's not binding
2) Stare Decisis was never intended to be a thing in our courts. We are not a "common law" system, we are civil law.
That needs to be dealt with above all else.

[Rastoff]

What would make it a precedent? A ruling by the 9th? SCOTUS?

[RickD427]

What would make it a precedent? A ruling by the 9th? SCOTUS?

A published decision from the Ninth Circuit would make it binding.

An unpublished decision from the Ninth Circuit would bind the parties in the case only and would not serve as precedent.

So far this month, the Ninth Circuit has issued 5 Published decisions and 27 Unpublished decisions.

Although contrary to the odds, I would expect the Ninth Circuits eventual decision in Duncan to be published because of the issues involved.