[Jim W N]

No, but it is treated as such. Whatever the case was that the 9th Circuit decided, it applies ONLY to the parties involved, just as the Roe v. Wade decision SHOULD have constitutionally affected ONLY the parties involved, NOT the whole country.

[BuckeyeTexan]

It’s not a new precedent and not national law. The states decide. The following is from a NYT article earlier this year.

In the 1977 decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Courtmade a distinction between two kinds of compelled payments. Forcing nonmembers to pay for a union’s political activities violated the First Amendment, the court said. But it was constitutional, the court added, to require nonmembers to help pay for the union’s collective bargaining efforts to prevent freeloading and ensure “labor peace.”

[Svartalfiar]

No, but it is treated as such. Whatever the case was that the 9th Circuit decided, it applies ONLY to the parties involved, just as the Roe v. Wade decision SHOULD have constitutionally affected ONLY the parties involved, NOT the whole country.

Correct, except that when they render their verdict, lower courts are going to follow that decision in any other cases they have. If another case gets to the SC, theoretically it should get the same answer as the original case, so there's not much point in lower courts issuing an opposite ruling.