Hmmm
 

Haven't we had this discussion berfore? :D

Not necessarily.

This is my understanding, so if I am mistaken, would a lawyer please correct me? :)

The way the federal court system works in matters like this is that if a district court makes a decision, it applies to the area that court has jurisdiction over. A similar case could be brought forth in a different jurisdiction and be decided a completely different way.

The only way a decision could reach the entire country is if SCOTUS makes the call.

Nope...it's official case precedence now my friend. SCOTUS could choose to hear an appeal and either reverse, affirm, or remand the decision. In the meantime, the decision applies throughout the US.

A big "roger that"!

Fortunately, precedent isn't law, and they do change from time to time. Segregation was justified by precedent, but another SCOTUS at another time said that didn't fly.

I think the challenge can be brought again in a different way. I hope it does, as this is a very bad decision.

Please bookmark this link to Gilmore v. Gonzales so that we can put to rest the notion that there is a constitutional right to fly. I know the OP wasn't making this argument, but many on FT do.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...h/0415736p.pdf

Now, is there a federal statutory right to fly? Well, it's interesting that neither Gilmore nor the Ninth Circuit even made any arguments under 49 U.S.C. Section 40103. I looked at the list of cases citing this section, and none seemed to pertain to any individual rights.

The Declaration of Independence holds it to be a self-evident right to the "pursuit of Happiness". However, saying there is a right in the abstract doesn't necessarily get you too far in court.

We can also pursue legislative or constitutional remedies to further enumerate our rights. I know this kind of thinking is anathema to many komrades these days, however.

Until it's challenged, case precedence is, in fact, "law."

stare decisis: Latin for "to stand by a decision," the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").

You forgot bringing EVERY piece of clothing you own on board with you and spending the flight curled up in the lap of the person behind you, because unlimited carry on baggage and reclining are amongst the Flyertalk Bill of Rights *smirk*

First off, I beg you not to use this West Wing inspired acronym for the Supreme Court of the United States. Isn't "US Supreme Ct." short enough for you?

Now, here's how precedent works in the federal judiciary. In the 94 judicial districts, the bankruptcy and district court opinions are merely persuasive precedents. In unrelated cases, other courts may choose to follow them, but they are not required to do so.

Next level up: the 13 Courts of Appeals. There are twelve regional circuits and a specialized Federal Circuit. A regional circuit's opinion is not controlling precedent outside of the circuit, but is only persuasive. So, to say a decision by a circuit or district court "applies throughout the US" is at best misleading. Quite often, circuits reach contradictory results on the same questions of law, and for that we go to...

The Supreme Court of the United States. You don't need a law degree to know that all federal courts are bound by its decisions on matters of federal law. However, the highest court of each state is actually the final authority on matters of state law, so long as such rulings are not inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution or federal law that validly preempts state law.

Whom do I bill for this?

I haven't flown with many Flyertalkers then.... :D

Precedent is law. It might be controlling, or merely persuasive (see above). It might "bad" law in that it is inconsistent with controlling authority, or with the great weight of decisions on the same question. It might one day be overturned, but it's still law.

Not a criminal, I pay, I fly. That's my right.

So, you'd like the entire US Code posted here?

This section describes a right to fly, and it is hard to read it as protecting only people with disabilities who own their own private aircraft.

That doesn't put it to rest. The court was wrong.