[vizeroth]

While circuits disagree, their rulings still hold weight outside of their district or circuit. A case comes to them because it is federal in nature or because there was a reason to remove the case from a state court. By the very nature of a federal court their cases have national weight, and they are not usually supposed to rule on matters of state or local law unless the issue at hand is a law which violates federal protections.

One of the important points in almost every part of this particular ruling is that the court denied or upheld claims almost entirely based on whether there was a reasonable belief that the officers should have known they were violating the law and/or his rights, and in most cases they chose to protect the officers even when making broad statements about the right to film officers. The dissenting opinion is also important (as it sometimes is in Supreme Court rulings as well) in showing that there are other ways the law can be interpreted, and even within this particular district (or on appeal to a higher court) you may not have the same result just because you think you're in the same situation.

[sbuttgereit]

I should have said it more precisely. That a given circuit court is only mandatory in its jurisdiction (the district courts in that circuit or that circuit court itself) whereas outside of that circuit it is persuasive. My language about guidance was imprecise, but not exactly wrong.

http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/toddbruno/mandatory_v__persuasive...