Opinion ID: 771934
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Treat the Statute as Binding Precedent

Text: 35 Appellants argue that the district court erred by requir[ing] that the prosecution be foreclosed by binding judgemade law, rather than treating the clear and unambiguous statutory language of the Shipping Act as binding precedent. The argument is without merit. As the district courtexplicitly stated, The Court is satisfied that the legal position taken by the government in this case was not foreclosed by binding precedent and that it was not so obviously wrong as to be frivolous. (emphasis added) (citation omitted). The emphasized portion indicates that the court did consider the reasonableness of the government's position independently of the absence of contrary case law. The district court did not ignore the statutory language--it just found the statute to be somewhat less clear and unambiguous than Appellants claim it is. Analyses of both the statute and the government's interpretation of it indicate that the district court did not abuse its discretion in so finding. See Part III.A, supra. 36