Post #1618131
2026-04-16 16:50 UTC
@Melezioh Right, I'm sorry if I implied it was a *Federal* precedent. The precedent I was referring to (which may not qualify as a *legal* precedent—you'd know better than I) is that a state has, for the first time, ruled that trans people are a suspect class. I am not a lawyer and was not pretending to be one; the word “precedent" is also used in lay English.
Replies (1)
-
@Melezioh@mstdn.games 2026-04-16 16:57
@dgoldsmith yea, it is only binding precedent for the courts in its jurisdiction. So restricted to the State. Other courts may look at it and maybe even cite it but it has no legal binding to any court outside of the State. Which was my point. Those courts scan just as easily cite Barrett’s non-binding words in Skrmetti where she argued it’s not a suspect class and she’s on SCOTUS. Overall it really didn’t do much outside the State, other than give a non-binding source to cite. It is great news for the State, though.