We do not acknowledge, and we do not hold, that other courts should conclude our more recent cases have, by implication, overruled an earlier precedent. We reaffirm that "[i]f a precedent of this Court has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which directly controls, leaving to this Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions."   Rodriguez de Quijas v. Shearson/American Express, Inc., 490 U.S. 477,484 (1989).
The D.C. Circuit, as it must, adheres faithfully to that instruction. E.g., United States v. Weathers, 186 F.3d 948, 957 n.l2 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Thus, whatever the merits of plaintiffs allegations concerning the errors in or consequences of Marsh, Compl. ^ 15-46, this Court must deny plaintiffs request that it "recognize" that the Supreme Court precedent controlling this case has been overruled, sub silentio, by general statements of law in recent judicial opinions that do not even reference the precedent at issue.
The same is true with respect to the D.C. Circuit's en bane decision in Murray. Although plaintiff does not ask this Court to overrule that decision, the Court obviously cannot grant the relief plaintiff seeks in the face of it. Just as appellate judges "leav[e] to [the Supreme] Court the prerogative of overruling its ... decisions," Rodriguez de Quijas, 490 U.S. at 484, District Judges, like panels of Circuit Judges, are obligated to follow controlling Circuit precedent. LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389, 1395 (D.C. Cir. 1996). "The doctrine of stare decisis compels district courts to adhere to a decision of the Court of Appeals of their Circuit until such time as the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of the United States sees fit to overrule the decision." Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 597 F. Supp. 1515, 1520 (D.D.C. 1984) (citations omitted). This Court, therefore, cannot overrule the D.C. Circuit's en bane decision in Murray for the same reason it cannot overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Marsh. The en bane D.C. Circuit's decision in Murray, like the Supreme Court's decision in
-14-