Precedential force depends on source and issue. A Supreme Court holding on federal law binds state and federal courts. A federal court of appeals binds district courts within its circuit on federal questions, while another circuit's opinion may be persuasive. A state's highest court controls state law. Before asking whether a precedent governs, identify the legal system, court level, jurisdiction, and proposition actually decided.

Application requires comparison, not word matching. A later court identifies the earlier holding, asks which facts made it necessary, and determines whether the new case is materially similar. To distinguish a precedent is to explain why a legally relevant difference places the new case outside its rule. Disagreement with the prior result is not itself a distinction.

Lawyers reason by analogy. They argue that a new fact is similar to one the earlier rule treated as decisive, or that it changes the constitutional or statutory interest enough to require another rule. Superficial differences, such as the parties' names or a new technology, do not automatically defeat precedent. The question is whether the difference matters under the precedent's reasoning.

The Supreme Court considers factors such as the quality of a precedent's reasoning, consistency with related law, practical workability, and reliance interests when asked to overrule. These considerations do not create a mechanical formula. Overruling rejects the prior legal rule; narrowing or distinguishing it leaves the rule in place for a smaller domain.

Statutory and constitutional precedents can raise different institutional considerations. Congress can usually revise a statute if the Court interprets it in a way legislators reject, while changing a constitutional holding may require later judicial reconsideration or constitutional amendment. That does not make every statutory precedent permanent or every constitutional precedent weak; it identifies a difference in who can respond and how.

Worked application. A district judge believes a controlling Supreme Court precedent is poorly reasoned. If its holding governs materially similar facts, vertical precedent requires the judge to apply it. The judge may note criticism, but only the Supreme Court or a valid constitutional or statutory change can remove the controlling rule.

Retrieval check. Label each opinion in a fractured decision, identify the holding, and explain whether the later court follows, distinguishes, narrows, or asks the Supreme Court to overrule it.

The beginner's error is to treat every earlier case as equally binding. First locate controlling authority. Then compare facts and reasoning. Only after those steps should you discuss whether the rule ought to be reconsidered.

Video lesson: Judicial Decisions: Crash Course Government and Politics #22