When a judge makes a ruling that is later overturned by the Supreme Court and later on another judge makes the same ruling, does it have to?

Question

through the same procedure to get to the Supreme Court or can the Supreme Court reach down and get that ruling and overturned it immediately?

Answer 1

Depending on circumstances either can happen. The Supreme court in Bush v Gore ordered the California Supreme Court to quit their BS.

Answer 2

Technically, the Supreme court ruling is Binding Precedent, meaning a lower court CAN'T issue a ruling that clearly contradicts it. In practice, the Supreme Court wouldn't even KNOW about most rulings until they are appealed through the 'normal' process.

From a strictly legal perspective, the court can consider a case on its own motion, even if the issue isn't appealed by anyone.

Answer 3

Once the Supreme Court makes a ruling the lower level courts have to follow it. It has become a ruling that applies for the whole nation.

Answer 4

If the facts are exactly the same as the SCOTUS case, they will not try it again. If the facts are a little different, they may distinguish the case and make a ruling that is consistent with their previous ruling.

Answer 5

In order for the later ruling to be the "same", it would have to be the exact same case. The second ruling would have to be appealed, pretty much like the first one. The Supreme Court doesn't "reach down" or do anything like that immediately (or at least, it's very very rare). The people that are hurt by the bad ruling have to file the appeal and go through the proper process.



Assuming that you're asking about U.S. procedure, and not Pakistan.

Answer 6

Later on, the other judge wouldn't make the same ruling because of the precedent set in the first SCOTUS ruling.



The SCOTUS cannot "reach down".