That's not the way it works pal. Wish it did, but it's not by my understanding.
When a lower court decides a case, it does so believing that the merits of it's decision is rooted in constitutional law. When the supreme courts reverses that lower court, or state court ruling, it essentially upturns the root law the lower court used to make it ruling.
If lower court said, I can rule this way because of this law, and then SCOTUS says, you can't use that law to rule that way, the the lower court no longer has that avenue to justify it's decision on. It could potentially try and find other justification for making a similar ruling, but I think if they had other justification, they would have used in in original ruling.
That's not the way it works pal. Wish it did, but it's not by my understanding.
When a lower court decides a case, it does so believing that the merits of it's decision is rooted in constitutional law. When the supreme courts reverses that lower court, or state court ruling, it essentially upturns the root law the lower court used to make it ruling.
If lower court said, I can rule this way because of this law, and then SCOTUS says, you can't use that law to rule that way, the the lower court no longer has that avenue to justify it's decision on. It could potentially try and find other justification for making a similar ruling, but I think if they had other justification, they would have used in in original ruling.