Binding precedent in the United States depends on two questions. Which court will decide the issue, and whose law governs it, federal or state? A case only binds if it comes from a court above the deciding court in the same system, and only for the part of the opinion that was needed to reach the result. Then you must show that later courts have not overruled or narrowed it.
This guide sets out a repeatable method for US litigators and in-house teams. It covers the federal and state hierarchy, holding versus dicta, unpublished opinions, and how to trace a case forward. Federal rules come first. Where state practice differs, the guide tells you to check that state's own rules, because no single state rule applies everywhere.
What makes a precedent binding in US courts?
The doctrine is stare decisis. The Legal Information Institute's Wex entry on stare decisis separates two forms. Horizontal stare decisis is a court following its own earlier decisions. Vertical stare decisis is a court applying precedent from a higher court, for example a federal district court in the Southern District of New York following the Second Circuit.
Vertical precedent is strict. In Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477 (1989), the Supreme Court said that if one of its precedents has direct application, the court of appeals should follow it, "leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions." In State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997), the Court said the Seventh Circuit was right to apply an earlier decision it disagreed with, "for it is this Court's prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents." The Court then overruled that earlier decision itself.
The federal system has three levels. According to uscourts.gov, there are 94 U.S. district courts and 13 courts of appeals below the Supreme Court. Some cases end up in federal court and some in state courts. Use this table as a first sort:
| Authority | Binding on | What to verify |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Supreme Court | Courts below it on questions of federal law | The holding, not just the result; any later Supreme Court case that overruled or limited it |
| Your circuit's court of appeals, precedential opinion | District courts in that circuit; for later panels, see the circuit's own rules | Whether the opinion is designated precedential; any en banc decision or Supreme Court case since |
| Another circuit's court of appeals | Not binding outside its circuit; persuasive only | Whether your circuit has ruled on the issue; whether the circuits are split |
| Federal district court | Not binding precedent on other courts | Use only as persuasive authority |
| State's highest court | Courts of that state, and federal courts applying that state's law | The state's own rules on which appellate decisions bind |
| Unpublished or nonprecedential opinion | Depends on the court's local rules | The local rule and the date of the opinion |
Two rows need a source note. For district courts, the Supreme Court in Camreta v. Greene (2011) quoted a treatise: a district judge's decision "is not binding precedent in either a different judicial district, the same judicial district, or even upon the same judge in a different case." For state courts, Wex's binding precedent entry gives the example that decisions of New York's highest court bind other New York courts but not courts in other states.
Which court will decide your issue, and whose law applies?
Write down the deciding court before you search. A federal district court in Texas, a state trial court in California and the Ninth Circuit will each have a different set of binding authorities on the same question.
Next, decide whether the question is federal or state law. In Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938), the Supreme Court held: "Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state." The Court added that whether state law is declared by the legislature or "by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern," and that "There is no federal general common law."
So for a state-law issue in federal court, start with the state's statutes and its highest court's decisions, because that is the law Erie tells the federal court to apply. For a federal question, start with the Supreme Court and your circuit.
Record each candidate authority on a short card:
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Case | Full name and citation, including the reporter and any docket number |
| Court and date | Court, decision date, and the date you retrieved it |
| Status | Published or unpublished; precedential or not; panel or en banc |
| Proposition | One sentence, stated narrowly |
| Pinpoint | The page or section that supports the proposition |
| Material facts | The facts the rule depends on |
| Later treatment | Followed, distinguished, criticized, limited or overruled, with the later case |
| Source | Official court or government URL, plus any reporter cross-reference |
How do you separate the holding from dicta?
Only the holding binds. In Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), the Court said it adhered "not to mere obiter dicta, but rather to the well-established rationale upon which the Court based the results of its earlier decisions." It went on: "When an opinion issues for the Court, it is not only the result but also those portions of the opinion necessary to that result by which we are bound."
Read the opinion in this order: the question presented, the material facts, the procedural posture, the reasoning, and the judgment. Then ask what reasoning was necessary to reach that judgment on those facts.
| Passage | Role | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Answer to the question actually decided | Likely holding | Test it against the facts, reasoning and judgment |
| Broad statement beyond the question decided | Likely dicta | Cite as persuasive only, and say so |
| Concurrence or dissent | Not the opinion of the Court | Do not present it as the holding |
| Summary of a party's argument | Not the court's conclusion | Find where the court accepted or rejected it |
| Quotation from an earlier case | Earlier authority | Read the earlier case and check how it was used |
Check the line-up of Justices at the start of the opinion to see which parts were joined by a majority, then confirm in the opinion itself. A concurrence is not the opinion of the Court.
Do unpublished opinions count as precedent?
In federal courts you can cite those issued on or after January 1, 2007, but that does not make them binding. FRAP 32.1 says a court may not prohibit or restrict citation of federal opinions designated "unpublished," "non-precedential" or similar, if they were issued on or after January 1, 2007. The committee note is clear that the rule "says nothing about what effect a court must give to one of its unpublished opinions or to the unpublished opinions of another court."
The effect is set by each circuit. Two examples:
- Ninth Circuit. Circuit Rule 36-3(a), in the Ninth Circuit rules, says unpublished dispositions and orders "are not precedent, except when relevant under the doctrine of law of the case or rules of claim preclusion or issue preclusion."
- Third Circuit. The court's Internal Operating Procedures say, at IOP 5.7, that not precedential opinions "are not regarded as precedents that bind the court because they do not circulate to the full court before filing."
Other circuits set their own rules, and state courts have their own publication and citation rules. Check the local rules for your court before you rely on, or dismiss, an unpublished opinion.
How do you check whether a precedent has been weakened by later treatment?
Run a forward search on every case you plan to cite. Search its name, every parallel citation, its docket number and any distinctive phrase. A citator flag is a starting point, not an answer. Open each later opinion and decide which proposition it treated.
| Later treatment | What it may mean | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| Followed or applied | The later court used the same holding | Confirm it is the same proposition on comparable facts |
| Distinguished | The rule stands but did not apply on different facts | Record the distinguishing fact |
| Criticized or questioned | The rule stands, but its strength is in doubt | Disclose it and look for a pending appeal or en banc petition |
| Limited | The rule now applies more narrowly | Use the narrowed statement and cite both cases |
| Overruled | The case no longer states the law on that point | Do not rely on it for that point |
| Superseded by statute or rule | A later enactment changed the law | Check the current text and its effective date |
Know who can overrule what. Only the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedents, as Khan shows. Each circuit sets its own practice on earlier panel decisions. The Third Circuit's IOP 9.1, for example, says "no subsequent panel overrules the holding in a precedential opinion of a previous panel. Court en banc consideration is required to do so." Check your own circuit's practice.
En banc review is the route to change circuit law. Under FRAP 40, as amended effective December 1, 2024, a petition for rehearing en banc must begin with a statement that the panel decision conflicts with a decision of that court of appeals, of the Supreme Court, or an authoritative decision of another court of appeals, or that the case involves a question of exceptional importance. The rule adds that rehearing en banc "is not favored." So track en banc petitions and orders for any recent panel decision you rely on.
Watch for circuit splits. Under Supreme Court Rule 10, in the rules effective March 16, 2026, a conflict between courts of appeals "on the same important matter" is one of the reasons the Court considers for granting certiorari. If your issue is split, the Supreme Court may take it up, so check its docket as part of your cut-off review.
What research workflow reduces the chance of missing a later case?
Use two passes. The first pass favors recall: gather every plausible authority, synonym and statutory hook. The second pass favors precision: rank, read, trace and document only the cases that support the proposition.
- Define the deciding court, the issue, the governing law (federal or state) and the relevant date.
- Write the proposition in one sentence and list its elements and exceptions.
- Confirm statutory text in the U.S. Code or the state's code, as in force on the relevant date.
- Find a recent high-authority opinion that surveys the earlier law.
- Work backward through each case it relies on.
- Sort every case using the hierarchy table above.
- Work forward from each key case using a citator and full-text searches.
- Check en banc activity in your circuit and the Supreme Court docket for any pending review.
- Read Supreme Court opinions on supremecourt.gov. Slip opinions are later replaced by versions with the final United States Reports pagination, so update your pinpoints when that version appears.
- Write a narrow rule with pinpoints, contrary authority and a research cut-off date, and have a second researcher reproduce the chain.
If you are building a research process for a team, a documented legal workflow helps keep the chain from query to verified source. The same discipline applies to evidence in the litigation readiness plan for in-house teams. For the same task under English law, see how to find binding precedent in the UK.
What should the final precedent check contain?
Before you call the research complete, confirm each item:
- The deciding court, and whether federal or state law governs, are stated.
- Every authority is sorted by court level and binding status in that forum.
- Statutory text is confirmed from an official source for the relevant date.
- Each proposition rests on the holding, with a pinpoint, not on dicta or a concurrence.
- Unpublished opinions are checked against the deciding court's local rules.
- Contrary authority and any circuit split are disclosed.
- Every key case has been traced forward to the cut-off date.
- Pending en banc petitions and Supreme Court review are noted.
- Official URLs, search terms and retrieval dates are saved.
- A second reviewer can rebuild the authority chain.
A good answer is one another lawyer can retrace. Gotham lets US legal teams research federal and state case law, the U.S. Code and federal regulations, review contracts at scale and draft in Word, in one workspace. Every answer cites the passage it relies on.
Questions about binding precedent in US courts
Is a decision from another federal circuit binding?
No. A court of appeals decision binds the courts within its own circuit. In another circuit it is persuasive only. When circuits disagree on the same important matter, that conflict is one of the reasons the Supreme Court lists in Rule 10 for granting certiorari.
Are unpublished federal opinions binding precedent?
It depends on the circuit. FRAP 32.1 lets you cite unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 2007, but it says nothing about their precedential effect. Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3(a), for example, says unpublished dispositions are not precedent, and the Third Circuit says its not precedential opinions do not bind the court. Check the local rules of your circuit.
Can a lower court refuse to follow a Supreme Court case it thinks is outdated?
No. In Rodriguez de Quijas the Supreme Court said a court of appeals should follow the case that directly controls and leave to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions. In State Oil Co. v. Khan the Court said this is its prerogative alone.
Which court decides what state law means in federal court?
The state does. Under Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, except where the Constitution or an act of Congress governs, a federal court applies the law of the state, whether declared by the state legislature or by the state's highest court in a decision. So for a state-law issue, start with that state's statutes and its highest court's decisions.
