Yeah. To follow up (and try to explain it in a way dumb people like me will understand) the US is big on &quot;precedence&quot;, which essentially means if a court says, &quot;We believe this law applies this way in this specific scenario&quot; then another court can and likely will reference that previous decision while making its own ruling on a completely separate (but somehow related) case.<p>As a hypothetical example, imagine a court 50 years ago said that talking to the police after invoking your 5th Amendment rights nullified your invocation of your rights.<p>Then, a case appears where a suspect wasn&#x27;t read his Miranda rights but had invoked the 5th, except he then spoke to the police immediately after (and nullified his previous invocation). Well, what if the court decides he can re-invoke his 5th Amendment rights once he&#x27;s finally read his Miranda rights? Boom. More precedence.<p>See how it can get complicated? It&#x27;s almost kind of like when you have to write a bunch of edge-case code because weird &quot;gotchas&quot; keep cropping up and it&#x27;s a bitch to rewrite the entire thing.