The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be…
The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be relevant where a case for declaration and injunction consistent with what sec 3 mandates in federal civil court. It is the Supreme Court which is bound by sec 3, even in Anderson the Majority don't dispute what sec 3 instructs the court with it's plain meaning, they avoid sec 3 completely in the context of the case.
The portion of the opinion that Ben highlights, isn't even dicta, nor is it in the scope of the case before them, so it is simply can not be binding on the lower federal courts.
Also, the reliance on Griffin's case requires a criminal charge, and therefor a federal law to override state law. However it also illustrates why it would not be relevant where a case for declaration and injunction consistent with what sec 3 mandates in federal civil court. It is the Supreme Court which is bound by sec 3, even in Anderson the Majority don't dispute what sec 3 instructs the court with it's plain meaning, they avoid sec 3 completely in the context of the case.