India decriminalises homosexuality

[Kuciwalker]

The New Delhi court in this case struck down a NATIONAL law. Which, unless the Indian justice system is completely incoherent, means that its decision is binding on other courts unless and until their decision is overturned by a higher court.

Actually, I believe in the US district courts typically on set precedent for their district until the Supreme Court rules either way.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW--does the USSC have appellate jurisdiction over matters arising under interpretation of State constitution anyway?

No, not unless there is a compelling federal matter involved in the decision.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, I believe in the US district courts typically on set precedent for their district until the Supreme Court rules either way.

Really? Interesting. What about the circuit courts of appeal?

[Kuciwalker]

Er, I think I should have said circuit court there. Or it might apply to both.

[Kuciwalker]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Precedent that must be applied or followed is known as binding precedent (alternately mandatory precedent, mandatory or binding authority, etc.). Under the doctrine of stare decisis, a lower court must honor findings of law made by a higher court that is within the appeals path of cases the court hears. In state and federal courts in the United States, jurisdiction is often divided geographically among local trial courts, several of which fall under the territory of a regional appeals court. All appellate courts fall under a supreme court. By definition, decisions of lower courts are not binding on each other or any courts higher in the system, nor are appeals court decisions binding on each other or on local courts that fall under a different appeals court.

Lower courts are also bound by precedent (that is, prior decided cases) of higher courts within their region. Thus, a federal district court that falls within the geographic boundaries of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is bound by rulings of the Third Circuit Court, but not by what was said in the Ninth Circuit, for example. (The Circuit Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction defined by geography.) The Circuit Courts of Appeals can interpret the law how they want, so long as there is no binding Supreme Court precedent. In fact, one of the common reasons the Supreme Court grants certiorari (that is, they agree to hear a case) is if there is a conflict among the circuit courts as to the meaning of a federal law.

[KrazyHorse]

So what happens if one circuit court makes one decision and another court makes a basically opposite one while the case is winding its way upward to the SC?

[KrazyHorse]

I understand the precedent is not binding, but shouldn't the parallel court at least take it into consideration?

[Kuciwalker]

I understand the precedent is not binding, but shouldn't the parallel court at least take it into consideration?

Sure, but courts can take anything they want into consideration.

So what happens if one circuit court makes one decision and another court makes a basically opposite one while the case is winding its way upward to the SC?

See the second quote I edited in. That usually prompts SCOTUS to decide they need to rule.

[Ramo]

A peer jurisdiction's precedent isn't binding, but it carries substantial weight.

[MrFun]

You have no idea what you're talking about. The Iowa Supreme Court deals with matters of state law. It is not part of the federal court system. It did not base its judgement in the Varnum case on the US constitution, but on the Iowa state constitution. The Iowa state constitution does not apply to anybody outside Iowa, for obvious reasons.

The New Delhi court in this case struck down a NATIONAL law. Which, unless the Indian justice system is completely incoherent, means that its decision is binding on other courts unless and until their decision is overturned by a higher court.

You simply restated what I had already said about Iowa and U.S. federal law as my example. Thank you.

However, I have to admit that with India, I thought that the New Delhi court ruling only affected laws within its jurisdiction. Apparently, this ruling will affect national law in India.

[KrazyHorse]

You simply restated what I had already said about Iowa and U.S. federal law as my example. Thank you.

No, I didn't. You made an analogy between the Iowa State Supreme Court and the New Delhi Supreme Court. This analogy makes no sense, becuase the Iowa State supreme court has NO JURISDICTION over federal laws, while the New Delhi Supreme Court DOES.

[KrazyHorse]

If you still think that the Iowa SC analogy has ANY bearing on this matter then you need to start thinking things through more carefully.

[MrFun]

As I said earlier, my mistake was when I thought New Delhi court was similar in jurisdiction in India, as Iowa Supreme Court is in United States.

I wasn't confusing U.S. state law with federal law. My mistake was that I mistook where New Delhi court stood in India's legal system.

[KrazyHorse]

Really? Because you could have deduced that from the SECOND PARAGRAPH.

In a judgment that followed eight years of judicial battle, the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), quoting Jawaharlal Nehru to emphasise that the Constitution guaranteed gay rights equal to what other citizens enjoy.

(emphasis added)

[Imran Siddiqui]

So what happens if one circuit court makes one decision and another court makes a basically opposite one while the case is winding its way upward to the SC?

As Kuci stated, usually the Supreme Court will take the case up, but not always. There have been more than a few examples of two different Circuits holding wildly divergent views on what federal law says for an extended period of time. I believe the 2nd Amendment, until District of Columbia v. Heller, was interpreted differently for numerous years in the 5th Circuit than in the 9th Circuit, the SCOTUS punted on fixing the discrepancy.