2 Notes on Precedent

Dickson v. Janvey, a dispute about the scope of an anti-litigation injunction, offers two basic reminders about the process of separating holding from dicta:

• Not discussed, likely not holding. “[W]e have previously held that a district court’s power over a receivership enables it to enjoin third parties or non-parties from pursuing certain claims involving the res of the receivership estate. But our statements in those cases implicated the equitable remedies available to the district court and not its jurisdiction. No one objected to personal jurisdiction in those cases, likely because any such objection would have been frivolous. But even if there were a latent in personam defect in those cases, our silence could never be construed as an implicit holding.” (citations and footnotes omitted).
• Not necessary, likely not holding. “Hall suggested in dicta that federal courts may enter in rem injunctions in aid of a previous in rem judgment.  It is unclear to us what the Hall court meant by this dicta.  But … the Hall court’s reference to an ‘inrem injunction’ was unnecessary to its decision. Federal jurisdiction in that
  case was not in rem. So the court’s in rem discussion was nonbinding dicta.” (citations omitted).

No. 23-10726 (Aug. 9, 2024) (Enthusiasts of dicta-holding distinctions will recall that courts have discretion whether to give effect to obiter dicta–an unnecessary but thoughtful statement–under the circumstances of a particular case.)