Are cases designated "not for publication" by a federal circuit court generally binding?

Cases designated "not for publication" by a federal circuit court are generally not binding precedent. This designation indicates that the court has determined the decision does not add significantly to legal precedent or that it resolves a matter that may not necessarily have broad implications for future cases. As such, these unpublished opinions are typically considered persuasive rather than mandatory authority.

Since lower courts and parties may not rely upon non-published cases as binding legal standards, the practice allows courts to maintain a level of discretion regarding which cases are considered authoritative in future litigation. While published opinions are obligatory for lower courts within the same circuit, unpublished opinions do not contribute to the legal framework to the same extent, thus reinforcing the idea that they are not binding. This distinction underlines the importance of legal publication in establishing binding precedents.

The other possible answers reflect misunderstandings of how unpublished opinions function within the judicial system or misinterpret the scope of their applicability.