Be afraid. Be very afraid. This is such a frightening precedent. Sounds more like the USSR than the US. Sad to see what is becoming of the great US.
"You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
As terrible as I, too, think this decision was, it was a decision by a trial court judge. "Precedents" don't attach to trial court decisions, only to appellate court decisions.
If Restis appeals, and the dismissal is upheld by the appellate courts, then there will be a precedent, with everything that implies. Similarly, if he appeals and the dismissal is reversed, a much more favorable (to your and my tastes, anyway) precedent will attach, which can be used to argue against any other attempts to toss suits to which the government isn't even a party on the basis of the State Secrets Privilege.
For the moment, however, this is an "isolated" incident, and can't be used precedentially in any similar cases.
EDIT: Yes, follow-ups, there are other definitions of the word "precedent". In the discussion of a legal decision, however, the legal definition takes ... well, precedence.
You keep saying "You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.". I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Precedent" as a term is wider than the specific US legal meaning.
precedent adjective 1. preceding in time, order, or importance. "a precedent case"
So this IS a precedent, and it is an important and frightening one, even if some other judge isn't technically allowed to cite it.
prec·e·dent noun ˈpresəd(ə)nt/ 1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
But then it becomes clear that maybe this case is not yet a precedent.
That precedent only applies to appellate court decisions is not true. There's persuasive precedent applies amongst courts of the same level.
It the facts and law are the same, a similar lower court decision could indeed be introduced in a similar case. The precedent isn't necessarily binding, but courts will generally defer unless there is a pervasive reason not too.
This is seen when the Supreme Court defers to its previous decisions (stare decisis)
If so, you're right that it's not binding. Higher courts can, and do, defer to lower courts — where the higher court concurs with the lower court's legal reasoning. But that requires the case to have appeared before an appellate court.
The reason for this is simple: trial courts consider questions of fact, while appellate courts consider questions of law.
Similarly, so-called "horizontal precedent" applies between peer appellate courts — and, again, isn't binding.
To my understanding, the only way this becomes more than informally precedential is if it's legitimately a "case of first impression" — and that would apply IFF this case is legitimately the first place this question of law was asked, and only until it's heard and ruled upon (or not taken up) by an appellate court.
Non-binding precedent is still precedent. And as you've said, in the absence of an higher court opinion to the contrary, lower court decisions can be taken as precedent and can be considered at the lower court (trial court level).
Lower courts consider new questions of law, otherwise new questions would never be able to be addressed (with some state level advisory opinions aside)
Not really.
Oftentimes people get lost too much in the legalese to see the big picture of what this decisions means.