Courts, Lawyering, Supreme Court

Holdings, Dicta, And Stare Decisis

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

Holdings, or ratio decidendi (Latin for “the rationale for the decision), are those parts of a court’s opinion that are binding on lower courts and later courts. This binding is referred to as the doctrine of stare decisis which provides hierarchical (vertical) and temporal (horizontal) continuity throughout the judicial system. Obiter Dicta (Latin for a statement “said in passing”), or dicta, are those parts of a court’s opinion that are not binding on lower courts and later courts. Dicta may suggest an interpretation of the law that may prove useful in future cases.

Distinguishing holdings and dicta is sometimes difficult and in some court opinions, intentionally so. Sub-categories of dicta, such as judicial dicta, and their different levels of authority, make the determination even more perilous. Dissenting opinions are always considered dicta.

Vertical stare decisis refers to the power of higher courts to bind the decisions of lower courts. All courts are bound by vertical precedent to follow the holdings in the decisions of the Supreme Court. Vertical stare decisis is generally considered absolute.

Horizontal stare decisis refers to the power of a court to bind itself. The Supreme Court while not bound by its prior decisions, does give them “substantial weight” in deliberations. There is a strong presumption that prior judicial articulations of the law are correct and generally should be followed. Horizontal stare decisis preserves a stable doctrine and prevents cycling.

While “we hold that …” or “the rule is …” are frequently giveaways to holdings, it is no guarantee in the holdings/dictum debate. In United States v. Rubin (1979), J. Friendly, in a concurring opinion, wrote:

A judge’s power to bind is limited to the issue that is before him; he cannot transmute dictum into decision by waving a wand and uttering the word “hold”.

Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.

H/T: Legal Theory Lexicon, Judith M. Stinson, Michael Abramowicz and Maxwell Stearns, Robert G. Scofield.

1,351 thoughts on “Holdings, <i>Dicta</i>, And <i>Stare Decisis</i>”

  2. Leo,

    With regards to Minor, what constitutes a natural-born citizen is not necessary to sustain the result that confining the right of voting to “male citizens of the United States,” is not a violation of the Federal Constitution. Hence, dictum.

    Ex Parte Lockwood doesn’t mention natural-born citizen at all.

  5. “Leo,

    Thanks for your comments. I agree, and have removed that sentence.”

    Thanks for updating the report. It’s not easy to do stuff like that, to reconsider things and act on such reconsideration. I applaud you for it.
    We still differ and I have addressed more below, but I respect you and hope that we will be able to find common truth one day.

    Let’s start with your conclusion:

    “Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims this passage is a holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this passage as orbiter dictum.”

    I don’t think that’s an accurate conclusion based upon Ex Parte Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894), an essential case which confirms Minor v. Happersett as precedent on the definition of federal citizenship:

    “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;”

    Please discuss this passage and then I will respond.

    Leo Donofrio

  6. Angrymanspeaks,

    You have apparently had the opposite view from mine: I have believed for 30 years that it is the courts that are responsible for really screwing up our government. Not that it wasn’t pre-screwed-up, I didn’t mean that we are sliding DOWN from some golden-age, no, just that as the screwing-up has been continual, the courts have continually been the dominant screwers.

    The reason I believe that is that the courts are working on precedent so that they hide (as unpublished, and even as impounded) the results-driven decisions they make which they do not want to stand as precedent, and then they mark as “PUBLISHED” all the decisions — most notably the worst, of course — that they DO want to stand as precedent. Executive branches of government are, of course, less uniformly horrible because each corrupt bureaucrat can only do so much, and he or she can be reigned in if necessary. Legislators cannot perform as atrociously as judges, of course, because they have REAL elections and face REAL opposition and they have to account for their decisions and answer for their votes.

    Anyway, who’s the worst? I don’t know. I vote for the JUDICIAL BRANCH.

  8. Maybe, the only dough he’ll admit to taking in Public is this:

    Scalia Deep-Dish Pizza Ruling: Supreme Court Justice Calls Chicago-Style ‘A Tomato Pie’

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/scalia-deep-dish-pizza-tomato-pie_n_1021778.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl6|sec3_lnk2|106202

    and 20 years later we’re still gittin’ chitlins’:

    Two decades later, Clarence Thomas is still a (relatively) young justice

    http://www.salon.com/2011/07/10/clift_clarence_thomas/singleton/

  9. “The court clearly states that, for this case, it is not necessary to determine if citizens born within the jurisdiction of the United States are natural-born citizens. That follows the classic definition of dicta.”

    “Clearly”, you have misquoted the Court.. Nowhere does the Court say that it was not necessary to determine if citizens born withing the jurisdiction of the US are natural-born citizens. Instead, the Court stated that it was not necessary to determine if persons born in the US without citizen parents are “citizens”. The Court did state “clearly” that those born in the US to citizen parents were natural-born citizens. The Court identified the class of natural-born citizens “clearly” and excluded those who were not born of citizen parents.

    Leo Donofrio

  12. Nal,
    Great post. It certainly cleared something up for me.

    “Distinguishing holdings and dicta is sometimes difficult and in some court opinions, intentionally so.”

    This statement verifies that which I have always known in my heart. The Justice system, like the rest of the Government is in the business of deceiving the public rather than protecting them. Full disclosure is the best protection they can provide and it is the one thing they will not do.

    The idea that a court decision would be written in such a way as to confuse it’s meaning rather than clarify is perhaps the most disheartening of all the disheartening things I have heard about our government since i began my interest in it’s workings (or non-workings if you chose).

    One might hope that even if the other branches exert inappropriate force and influence, the courts would reign them in. I guess I shouldn’t be surprized that SCOTUS is justv as corrupt as the rest of the system but somehow I still am. I;m sure I’ll get over it in short order when my anger takes over from the disappointment. Not that I had full faith but perhaps just a little more than I had in the rest of the government. I guess Naivete’ sneaks up just when you think you are fully jaded.

  13. If a child is a citizen only if the parents are, you have made the problem twice as hard, and, by induction on the generations, difficult without limit.

  18. In retired Justice John Paul Stevens’ book, “Five Chiefs,” and in essays written since his retirement, he refers to some of these issues. It’s interesting reading as the legalese isn’t too bad.

    One of the reasons I started reading this blog was to gain an understanding of the Supreme Court … yes, there is a small joke there but I will leave it to others …. 🙂

  19. “Horizontal stare decisis refers to the power of a court to bind itself. The Supreme Court while not bound by its prior decisions, does give them “substantial weight” in deliberations.”

    ********************

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

    ~Ralph Waldo Emerson (Essays. First Series. Self-Reliance.)

Comments are closed.