Effect of the Newdow case on the precedential value of the Ninth Circuit decision

[Volokh, Eugene]

	But vacating the district court judgment doesn't, I think, by
itself vacate the earlier opinion.  Those parts that were reversed on
other grounds might presumably still be argued to be binding precedent.
I think Howard's and Sam's arguments against that position will and
should prevail -- but I don't think that the Ninth Circuit's order
vacating the trial court judgment would affect that.

Ed Hartnett writes:

> Another possibility is that it assumed that the Court of 
> Appeals would see that this was obviously the way to 
> implement its decision and could be trusted to enter a 
> judgment along the lines I previously suggested:  "The 
> judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is 
> remanded with instructions to dismiss the complaint for lack 
> of jurisdiction."