DOJ 47
State of New Jersey v. Trump (1:25-cv-10139)

Court dockets

Background

TODO.

News

Preliminary injunction granted
2025-02-13

Read the opinion. The quoted DOJ attorney is Eric Hamilton.

Gabriel Malor
I'm not sure I can keep reading this. I would simply expire right there on the spot.
At the motion hearing, the defendants doubled down on this point, brazenly claiming that “dicta can be disregarded.” Mot. Hr’g Tr. at 75. That position reflects a serious misunderstanding at best— and a conscious flouting at worst—of the judicial process and the rule of law. Case 1:25-cv-10139-LTS Document 144 Filed 02/13/25 Page 16 of 31 17 Lower federal courts are not merely obligated to apply the holdings of Supreme Court decisions; they also “are bound by the Supreme Court’s ‘considered dicta.’” United Nurses & Allied Prof’ls v. NLRB, 975 F.3d 34, 40 (1st Cir. 2020) (quoting McCoy v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., 950 F.2d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 1991)). “Carefully considered statements of the Supreme Court, even if technically dictum, must be accorded great weight and should be treated as authoritative when . . . badges of reliability abound.” United States v. Santana, 6 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1993). If such a statement “bears the earmarks of deliberative thought purposefully expressed,” concerns an issue that was “thoroughly debated in the recent past,” and “has not been diluted by any subsequent pronouncement” of the Supreme Court, a lower federal court must adhere to it. Id.