Which statement correctly characterizes the binding status of secondary sources?

Which statement correctly characterizes the binding status of secondary sources?

• A. A secondary source can never be binding authority
• B. A secondary source can be binding authority in some cases
• C. A secondary source is always binding
• D. A secondary source is always non-binding

Answer: (A)

The main idea is that binding authority comes from primary sources like statutes, constitutions, and controlling case law, while secondary sources are used for explanation and persuasion. A secondary source—such as a treatise, Restatement, or law review article—does not have the force of law and isn’t something a court must follow. It helps you understand the law, interpret how it’s applied, or see how scholars and courts have analyzed an issue, but it does not bind the outcome. That’s why the statement that a secondary source can never be binding authority is the best choice. It captures the fundamental distinction: secondary sources are persuasive, not mandatory, even though they can be highly influential in shaping argument and understanding. The other options imply that secondary sources can be binding in some cases, always binding, or always non-binding. In practice, neither of those is correct—the binding force rests with primary authorities.

The main idea is that binding authority comes from primary sources like statutes, constitutions, and controlling case law, while secondary sources are used for explanation and persuasion. A secondary source—such as a treatise, Restatement, or law review article—does not have the force of law and isn’t something a court must follow. It helps you understand the law, interpret how it’s applied, or see how scholars and courts have analyzed an issue, but it does not bind the outcome.

That’s why the statement that a secondary source can never be binding authority is the best choice. It captures the fundamental distinction: secondary sources are persuasive, not mandatory, even though they can be highly influential in shaping argument and understanding.

The other options imply that secondary sources can be binding in some cases, always binding, or always non-binding. In practice, neither of those is correct—the binding force rests with primary authorities.