‘Affirmed’ Definition and Meaning in Law
The term "affirmed" is commonly applied in various judicial contexts, primarily to distinguish an appellate court’s adjudication of a matter. In short, "affirms" means an appellate court has concluded a judgment or order issued by a lower court shall be maintained. Of particular relevance is the fact that affirmance signifies that the appeal was unsuccessful. In other words, an affirmation by the appellate court serves to uphold the work of the court below.
The most commonly referenced source when it comes to the legal definition of affirmed is Black’s Law Dictionary, which specifies that the term means "[t]o declare that a court judgment or order is valid and existing after the lower court’s decision has been appealed."
There are some important implications of "affirmed". First, affirmed must be considered in connection with appellate decisions that reverse, vacate, or remand a lower court’s ruling. When there’s a reversal, for example, the appellate court is holding the lower court had no ample basis for its decision. And when the decision is vacated, the appellate court has determined there isn’t adequate support for a previously rendered decision, making that decision void. The effect of affirm, on the other hand, is to maintain.
The legal definition of affirmed (and its practical use) may be somewhat difficult to discern because affirmed, as a legal term, is also viewed as a commonly used English term. For example, you’ve probably heard, or said yourself, "I affirmed him" when referencing a public office or position. In the judicial context, affirmed signifies that the lower court’s action is maintained or confirmed, meaning that the party against whom the lower court decided did not have a winning argument on appeal . Simply put, the party’s arguments fail to convince the appellate court.
If a court’s decision is affirmed, there are an array of options available to the losing party. This includes seeking an en banc review, which is a rehearing before all judges participating on the court, unless otherwise ordered. Another option involves petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which would grant the appellate court discretion for reviewing the lower court’s decision.
There is one exception to the general rule that the legal definition of affirmed signifies that a lower court’s decision shall be maintained. This involves the concept of avoidably adverse precedent. Avoidably adverse precedent occurs when unlike parties in similar circumstances are treated differently by the court, which conflicts with principles of fairness and equal justice. Accordingly, the party’s motion seeking to overturn the affirmance will likely prevail.
Consider a situation in which an applicant who is a native of a "country of concern" is denied asylum based on extremely credible persecution allegations. The applicant is granted asylum in a different circuit, and persuasion doesn’t work in convincing the lower court serving the "country of concern" that the denial was incorrect. Even though the decision to affirm appears to apply, the lost party may be able to establish that, in the case of an award, there would have been a benefit to such award. In the case of denied asylum, establishing that another similarly situated party was awarded asylum may result in the loss party winning a motion for reconsideration.
How Courts Reach an Affirmed Ruling
When an appellate court issues an opinion, it generally explains its reasoning for the decision in writing. That is not necessarily the case, however, when a lower court’s decision is simply affirmed without a full explanation. In such cases, unless the decision being appealed is on a question of law or equity, the appellate court "does not give reasons when affirming the decision of a lower court as a question of fact," even if it affirms a decision following a trial or a bench trial rather than a jury trial (La. C.C.P. art. 2161). In those circumstances, the appellate court has apparently accepted all the elements of the lower court’s decision without independently reviewing the evidence in the record (which is what it would be doing if it were to review the questions of fact under a standard of review other than manifest error).
Whether employing the standard of review de novo, clearly or manifest error, courts must follow the legal rules established by the Louisiana Supreme Court when determining how to categorize the appeal: "We are bound by Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudence" and have no authority to apply a standard of review that "does not conform to Louisiana Supreme Court jurisprudential precedent."
For example, where the appeal involves a determination of a victim’s loss of income and retirement benefits after a car accident, the court of appeal employs a de novo standard of review because the issue is one of law. A trial court’s fact-specific findings, however, regarding the number of days per week the victim has able to work since the accident and how much pay she has been earning are reviewed under the manifest error standard of review because those are factual conclusions which depend on the credibility of the witnesses.
Effect an Affirmed Decision Has on Precedent
When a court decision is affirmed, it carries significant weight in the eyes of the law. For starters, it strongly influences future cases that might raise similar issues. In fact, affirmed decisions carry a presumption of correctness, swaying the opinions of judges and justices in new matters that concern similar facts or legal questions. The process of courts making legal decisions over time creates what is known as a body of case law. Creating binding law from the decisions in such cases is a core part of the doctrine of stare decisis. This is an important doctrine in the United States, as it is how appellate courts set a precedent of law. It does not replace existing statute or constitutional law — it supplements existing law to clarify the way in which the laws of the land are to be interpreted. When a court affirms the decision of a lower court, particularly in a civil case, it becomes binding law under the doctrine of stare decisis. If an intermediate appellate court holds a decision in, for example, a workers’ compensation matter, it is generally the law of that jurisdiction until it goes to an intermediary court for a legal review and the higher court decides to uphold or reverse the ruling. As a result, affirmed decisions — works of case law — have the potential to substantially alter the body of law that exists in that particular jurisdiction.
Take for instance a case regarding a denial of workers’ compensation benefits, such as heated arguments over whether a pre-existing condition or an accident or event in the office environment contributed more to severity of an injury. In some situations, the appellate body of law might decide that the courts are taking a too strict of an approach to these factors, if they are not reviewed in a proper light. When reviewing cases to determine if case law suggests a particular decision is stricter than the law in the past, it becomes very important that litigators, lawyers, judges and the legal system use affirmed decisions to provide context about the case at hand. The understanding of how the law has worked in the past greatly impacts individual decisions when such matters are at hand.
Examples of High-Profile Cases that Have Been Affirmed
The practice of law has witnessed an array of cases that have made it to their final destinations, the United States Supreme Court. Here are a few examples that have become milestones in American jurisprudence.
The Right to Bear Arms: The Second Amendment
District of Columbia v. Heller is a 2008 case where the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense within a home and that federal law banning registration of handguns and restricting gun licenses in Washington D.C. violated the Second Amendment. In the case, Dick Heller applied for a handgun license but was denied despite passing background checks, which later led him to file suit. This landmark ruling solidified the Second Amendment as an individual’s right beyond "a well-regulated militia," thus sending shockwaves through the country and inspiring debate and subsequent court cases about the Second Amendment at a state and federal level.
The Affordable Care Act: National Healthcare
National Federal of Independent Business v. Sebelius is a 2012 case that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act under Congress’ power to tax but also rejected the provision of expanding Medicaid under the Act . The court decided that Congress cannot penalize states if they refused to participate in the expansion, as individual people could not be penalized by such an action. The action was deemed unconstitutional. The court upheld the ability of Congress to pass laws that force state governments to comply with Medicaid but couldn’t use a tax on individuals to force states to increase their Medicaid programs.
Religious Freedom and Healthcare
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. is a 2014 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that closely-held companies could be exempted from a requirement to provide insurance under the Affordable Care Act that covers certain contraceptives that they find objectionable on religious grounds. The outcome of this case meant that the thirty employers with ninety percent or more of their stock held by five or fewer individuals were allowed to opt-out of this mandate if they are filed as a nonprofit group.
These cases have set the tone for future cases, as well as how courts at both the state and federal levels interpret and legislate the laws.
Affirmed vs. Reversed vs. Remanded: What’s the Difference?
Every law student and most lawyers should know that when an appellate court makes a decision, its ruling is either an "affirmance, reversal, or remand," but what does that really mean? Of course, every attorney should have a firm grasp of the meaning of approved without a taxable cost opinion but beyond that, not many people can easily explain the precise differences between affirmed, reversed and remanded.
But stopped in a moment of self reflection this is one of the things I do for clients every day, so here it goes… An affirmed decision leaves the lower court’s decision in place, as is. A reversed decision overturns the lower court’s decision, in whole or in part and results in an opposite decision being placed in the lower court record. The latter is often referred to as changing a decision from a pro or con. For example, if the lower court decision is that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff in the amount of $100,000.00 and the appeal court issue an opinion reversing that decision, then the reverse would be that the Plaintiff is not liable to the Defendant for any damages. A remand does not overrule the lower court decision, but merely sends the case back to the lower court for proceedings in accordance with the appellate courts opinion.
What does this all mean?
Well, the bottom line is that affirmed decisions are generally bad for defendants and plaintiffs (if you need a federal citation then see Iowa Code Case v. Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission; 868 N.W.2d 103). Reversed decisions are generally good for defendants, horrible for plaintiffs, and reversed and remanded decisions are a bit of an enigma because they could be good for either party (it just depends on the explication). Remands are often a mixed bag, but can be good for either party. In my experience, the odds of a defendant re-emerging from the lower court with losses are much better on a remand. The first reason for this is that during the trial court proceedings the plaintiff gets to refine or improve their case while the attic gets to see how the case will be presented and adapt their case to overcome the loss. The second reason is that sometimes the appellate court sets the legal precedent that makes it impossible for the plaintiff to recover on remand.
So that’s it, a simple and basic explanation of the differences between affirmed, reversed and remanded decisions.
Common Misconceptions About the Term ‘Affirmed’
To "affirm" in law, simply means you agree with the decision already issued by a lower or an appellate court. This doesn’t necessarily mean that you like the decision or the outcome, but you accept it. This is because the alternative to an ‘affirmed’ decision in the eyes of the law is reversal, which essentially means that the court has thrown out a prior decision it did not agree with.
Sometimes, however, people get confused by the term ‘affirmed’ and think that it has some kind of other meaning. 1. One misconception is that the term means that something bad for the one party to the case was specifically granted to the other party . 2. Another is that it somehow grants the appealing party a second bite at the same apple.
In reality, an affirmed decision is not synonymous with a win. Affirmed simply means that the court is agreeing with the decision of the lower court. An appellant may appeal a decision that they believe is erroneous, and request that the higher court reverses the decision or alters the terms in favor of the appellant. If the appellate court agrees with the lower court, the decision is affirmed as it is; if not, it will be reversed or set aside.