Talk:Federal court ruling

This really should be a stub. It needs more research, to determine whether this is just a Liberal POV, e.g., advocated by the liberal ACLU - or is well-established fact. --Uncle Ed 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Right now this looks like it's about the same thing as Judicial review in the United States. Also I'm not quite happy with the bold assertion that "Thus, in the Separation of Powers, any of the 10 district court judges has absolute authority over the president"- this seems to be overstating the case a bit. Friday (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Couple sentences removed
I removed this for now:

If the President wants to appeal such a ruling to the Supreme Court, he may, but until then the ruling has the force of law. If he orders a subordinate to disobey it, that subordinate is subject to immediate arrest.
 * I don't believe this is very accurate- the president, like anyone else, would need legal standing- I'm not aware that he already has is by virtue of being president, which this seems to imply.

Thus, in the Separation of Powers, any of the 10 district court judges has absolute authority over the president - subject only to the review of the Supreme Court.
 * Calling this "absolute authority over the president" is stretching things. Don't we really just mean that the president is not automatically immune to all federal law just because he's president?   This might be a topic for executive immunity, but I guess there's no article on that, specifically.  Friday (talk) 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Weaknesses in the article
I agree with all your objections above, Friday. Sorry for starting a new talk section.

I probably should have done more research first, but, darn it! this is a wiki and it's understood that newly created articles aren't necessarily authoritative.

I was intrigued by several mentions (in recent history) that a federal court "struck down" a particular law. The assumption being that the instant the ruling is issued, at carries unstoppable force.

Is this a majority POV? That is, do both Democrats and Republicans agree on this? When Democratic presidents are in power, do they immediately and fully obey orders issued (rulings?) by federal court judges?

What is the appeals process, especially the timetable. If a federal court in San Francisco issues a ruling on a federal law, does the whole country jump to obey? Or waint to see how the appeal turns out, or what?
 * Nothing wrong with a work-in-progress. I do wonder whether or not there's too much overlap with Judicial review in the United States - right now both articles seem to be about the same thing.  I'm not sure why we'd be concerned with POV issues here- the idea that the court can rule a law unconstitutional doesn't really need to be described as anyone's POV, we can just call it a fact.  It's about as solid as any "fact" can be.  Friday (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. see Case_law, this talks a bit about how judicial rulings work. Friday (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I perhaps failed to make clear one of my questions. Not, "Can a court issue such a ruling?" but "Does the ruling have actual power?"


 * For example, a policeman can order you to undress in public. Is it illegal for you to refuse? Does he have legal power to enforce such an order?


 * I'm talking about the limits of authority here. In ordinary lawsuits, when the jury "awards" you money, is it automatically deposited in your bank account within the hour? According to what I've read, "winning" a lawsuit and "collecting the money" are two different things. The appeals process can drag on for years. --Uncle Ed 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Case law is binding, sure, as much as any other law. But I think in situations where it looks likely that a higher court may rule on the same issue, sometimes things sort of get put on hold while the situation gets resolved.  I think the details ultimately come down to the actions of the individuals involved- sure, the policeman's order to undress might not be a lawful order, but this doesn't prevent him from finding a reason to take you to jail if you refuse.  You might even sometimes get a situation where a particular person or agency continues to try to enforce a law that's been struck down or is in a grey area- they can still try to do so, and only after the fact will a court become involved again to straighten the mess out.  The thing to remember is that no law ever prevents anything from happening, it merely provides a framework for prosecution or civil penalties after the fact.  Not sure if that helps answer the question or not. Friday (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Lower courts and the Federal Executive Branch
The prod said:


 * The article's thesis is unclear, and it is overly simplistic to the point of inaccuracy. The articles on United States Federal Courts and Federalism already enable the reader to reach the information this article attempts to convey.

However, the United States federal courts article does not address the issue at all. I would like this article to tell readers whether:
 * 1) Clearly, lower courts can give orders to the White House and to federal agencies - which must be obeyed under pain of arrest, imprisonment, fines, etc. - or
 * 2) There is an ongoing dispute about this conflict - or
 * 3) Clearly, lower court "rulings" have nothing to do with the Executive branch of the US federal government at all.

Don't tell me the information is already "there" someplace. If I had seen it there, I would have summarized it and linked to it - or simply done a merge and a redirect. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

(response to Uncle Ed--my apologies for apparently not adding my comment to the page properly)

The issue here, in my view, is not whether the information sought to be conveyed by this article is already present somewhere else on Wikipedia. It may or may not be--I haven't scoured to find out. Rather, I think the stated goals of this article don't warrant the article's independent existence. For example, 1) "[Whether] Clearly, lower courts can give orders to the White House and to federal agencies - which must be obeyed under pain of arrest, imprisonment, fines..." This is not a question about "federal court rulings," as such.  This is a question of separation of powers.  The question about how, when, and to what degree the executive must adhere to a federal court ruling is a very complex question, and it is properly answered with a discussion of the various spheres of operation of the three branches of government, which discussion is incident to an article on separation of powers, not on the nebulous concept of a "federal court ruling."  Hence, my point is that there are existing tools on wikipedia that enable readers to find the information necessary to approach these questions.  Articles on federalism, the federal system in general, separation of powers, etc. surely lead a reader to what he seeks. The problem is that the questions sought to be answered by this article often don't have "answers" per se, so much as they are questions inherent to our system of government that are constantly discussed.

Also, more generally, what is even meant by a "federal court ruling"? Is it a preliminary ruling? Is it a constitutional judgment? Is it a rule of construction? Is it criminal? Civil? What federal court rulings does it refer to? District? Courts of Appeal? Tax Court? Court of Federal Claims? FISA Court? There are MANY types of federal court rulings; they cannot be generalized like this article attempts to do. This heading is far too broad to lend itself to any sort of meaningful discussion. The questions about the import of a given federal ruling require context to lead to any meaningful answers. The context in which a ruling is made will be determinative of what it means, who it binds, and myriad other things.

Further, the statement that a federal court is the highest court possible is a patently incorrect statement. There are many federal courts that are "inferior" to state courts. This is not a question of the superiority of the court, per se. Rather, it's a question of the subject matter of the case or controversy before the court.

As I see it, this is not a useful article and should be deleted. These issues are better dealt with elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorotdi (talk • contribs) 17:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You said, there are existing tools on Wikipedia that enable readers to find the information necessary to approach these questions. If this is true, you can save both of us a lot of time by using those tools to find the answers to the questions this article raises, putting those answers in the article, and linking to the articles where you found the answers.


 * If you can't do that - and I certainly can't, I've already tried several times - then your argument is disproven. Actually, the article is needed but woefully incomplete. It should be researched and completed. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

New Deletion Proposal
For the reasons stated in the response to Uncle Ed, above, I am proposing again that this article be deleted. Please do not simply come behind me and remove the tag. Rather, the tag should remain and discussion should be had in the Talk forum.

As it stands, it is my opinion that this article and the stated reasons for its existence reflect a general misunderstanding of the law and of our tripartite system of government. The questions sought to be answered by this article simply cannot be answered in the vacuum of this article. Rather, they are subsidiary questions arising out of the very nature of federalism and our system of separation of powers. This article simply is grossly over-simplistic in what it is attempting to do. I'm happy to discuss this opinion further.
 * The place to discuss deletion of the article is WP:AFD, not here; follow that link for instructions on procedure. The proposed deletion tag is only for uncontested deletions, so it shouldn't be replaced in the article once anyone has removed it - see WP:PROD. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Proposal
Maybe what we need is a disambig page, something like this ...

Federal court ruling can refer to
 * a decision or order made by a federal court
 * such as any of the United States federal courts

See also:
 * Judicial review
 * Judicial review in the United States
 * Separation of powers

I'd like to do whatever I can to help our readers overcome their misunderstanding of US law and the American tripartite system of government. Perhaps this is covered better in Civics? --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)