In the latest debate about the Administration's inexplicable decision to appeal the DADT ruling, a new zombie misconception as arisen: Somehow this ruling creates a precedent by which a federal judge can simply toss out other laws we agree with. Health care reform tends to pop up as an example here. A subtle corollary is that by not appealing the ruling, the Administration is somehow preventing itself from arguing that this hypothetical future judge does not have the authority to overturn the law.
I don't know if this argument is an intentional red herring or just a misunderstanding of how binding precedent works, so I'll give people the benefit of the doubt.
Nevertheless it is just plain wrong.
There are three points to be made here.
First, precedent does not work the way people claim it works here. The court that made this ruling is a Federal District Court, the lowest court in the regular federal judicial system. The rulings made at this level are not binding on any other court. Now, if this were appealed to the next level up, the Circuit Court of Appeals, that ruling would be binding on all other federal courts in that circuit. If the ruling were further appealed to the Supreme Court, that ruling would be binding on everyone. Game over.
But at this level, the reasoning behind the decision and the power of a single federal judge to overturn DADT and impose it worldwide may be interesting points but do not carry the force of law anywhere else. No other judge has the obligation to look at this ruling and follow it. None.
I hope those people who are afraid that HCR is in jeopardy if we don't get the DADT ruling struck down can leep more easily.
The second misconception to squash is that by declining to appeal this ruling, the government in some way limits its defense of other laws in the future. By remaining silent and allowing the District Court's order to stand, the government is really taking no position whatsoever on the Court's methods or reasoning. There is no law that says they have to appeal or be forced to accept any other District Court ruling anywhere for all eternity. It just doesn't work that way.
Finally, I'll make the obvious point that people seem to be missing: It is precisely the role of the Federal District Courts to evaluate the constitutionality of a law and, if found lacking, to overturn the law. Typically these cases are appealed up the food chain and sooner or later the Supreme Court has a final say, but there is nothing that mandates it work that way. Just usually the laws in question are laws the administration agrees with and wants to see remain in place.
That is what is so baffling here. Ostensibly the administration does not agree with DADT and wants to see it overturned and yet, the government is still appealing.
Don't be bamboozled, though, into believing arguments that the Administration's choice is to either appeal this ruling or accept a bad precedent and be precluded from fully defending other laws in the future.