Search Results
7/10/2025, 7:59:54 PM
>>510022444
Courts ignore higher court precedents all the time. What usually happens is the lower court's ruling is appealed to a higher court, which then says there's a precedent for this and sets aside the lower court ruling.
Without looking into the details of the SCOTUS ruling and NH ruling, I can't say if the two clash directly or are tangentially related but can say just because there exists a SCOTUS ruling, even a recent one, doesn't mean a lower court won't try to ignore it.
There's no real consequence for this type of behavior other than in theory having too many rulings overturned makes it less likely to be appointed to a higher court. In reality, those overturned rulings can make the judge desired for promotion if the party of their ideology is in charge of the appointment.
Courts ignore higher court precedents all the time. What usually happens is the lower court's ruling is appealed to a higher court, which then says there's a precedent for this and sets aside the lower court ruling.
Without looking into the details of the SCOTUS ruling and NH ruling, I can't say if the two clash directly or are tangentially related but can say just because there exists a SCOTUS ruling, even a recent one, doesn't mean a lower court won't try to ignore it.
There's no real consequence for this type of behavior other than in theory having too many rulings overturned makes it less likely to be appointed to a higher court. In reality, those overturned rulings can make the judge desired for promotion if the party of their ideology is in charge of the appointment.
Page 1