DefinitelyDressage.com

I've recently been told that if an individual (A) files a suit on Constitutional grounds - violation of some Right - and that suit goes all the way to SCOTUS and the plaintiff loses, that doesn't set precedent...?

That individual B can then file suit on the same grounds...?

Please explain.

While no lawyer, I don't believe anything goes straight to SCOTUS, everything has to start in a Federal Court somewhere. Also, many times SCOTUS crafts their decision so narrowly that it only applies to a very narrow definition of a particular situation.

Without more info about your question, I would recommend you look at this site and see if it gives you some idea of how civil rights complaints start:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/how-file-complaint

Edited to add, I believe that the Chief Justice presides at Presidential Impeachment proceedings by the constitution but that responsibility is separate from the administration of law by SCOTUS.

I said goes "all the way to SCOTUS" not goes straight there. Of course this kind of thing has to move through the lower courts first. It can take years. Regarding online searches, I need to know the name of this supposed...policy...case...instance... I don't even know what to refer to it as...

Tarlo Farm wrote:I said goes "all the way to SCOTUS" not goes straight there.

Sorry, mis-read your first post.

Of course this kind of thing has to move through the lower courts first. It can take years. Regarding online searches, I need to know the name of this supposed...policy...case...instance... I don't even know what to refer to it as...

While again I must emphasize my lack of legal credentials, if the lower court doesn't refuse to hear the case, that usually means there is/are some sort of legal ground(s) to proceed, i.e. the circumstances of the new case maybe sufficiently different from the SCOTUS judgement to allow it to proceed for adjudication. Should a case be found to be sufficiently different than the SCOTUS opinion, but in the opinion of one of the plaintiffs, should be covered by the original opinion, one still has to have sufficient funds to walk the case through the appeal system. U.S. law is as much defined by "deep" pockets as justice.

If one is patient, most of the current search engines will allow phrase searching and by trying different phrases one can sometimes find what they are looking for by repeated searches on different phrases and using the results of each search to adjust the search phrase.

Thanks for your input. I got my answers and two great, relatively easily understandable explanations. The term "precedent" refers to law, not facts.

For example, if an atheist brings something all the way to SCOTUS on grounds of their atheism, the final decision doesn't preclude a Buddhist from bringing the same complaint all the way to SCOTUS on the grounds of their Buddhism.

I suspect (and no, not an attorney of any kind) that it isn't that "simple".

It would be the circumstances under which the atheist challenged the constitutionality of an action (ex: decorating or not a cake) vs the circumstances under which the Buddhist challenged the constitutionality of a different action.

Same action, same circumstances, different "facts" (i.e. atheist/Buddhist/Muslim/Christian/Jewish), it is that simple. As far as any court case is "simple"...

From two attorneys, one of whom used to be on this board.