Cops are required to enforce unconstitutional laws and judges are prohibited from questioning their constitutionality in court
As to the ruling in Marbury v. Madison, alas, it is not a precedent and it is not binding to any of these impotent modern courts in America, and neither is the Constitution itself …
Or how America's Constitution has been gutted by the courts …
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
C.J. Ciaramella
The panel's opinion creates binding precedent in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and, according to the opinion, it makes the 2nd Circuit the ninth federal circuit to agree on the issue. Although the Supreme Court has not ruled on the matter, every circuit court that has considered the issue has found an unambiguous First Amendment right to record and monitor the police, so long as one isn't physically interfering with or obstructing an officer. ¶"We begin by joining a growing chorus of our sister circuits that have recognized a First Amendment right to record law enforcement activity in public," Pérez wrote. "That right encompasses Massimino's recording of the exterior of a police station from a public sidewalk."
It probably would not be much of a court ruling at all if it were not “binding” — but to introduce that term is to remind us that no ruling of a court can ever be “binding” beyond or outside its exact wording on the particular matter on which the court has directly ruled.
The “mob appeal” language of a “growing chorus of our sister circuits” is an open abomination in court, regardless of context and regardless of which side of the matter it appears on.
No one in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States of America and more particularly its First Amendment is seriously questioning the public's right to record law enforcement activity in public or to record the exterior of a police station from a public sidewalk.
However the lower courts have been barred by the higher courts from interpreting or applying Constitutional law on their own. District courts are strictly limited to applying and enforcing administrative and statutory law only, without regard to the Constitution.
District court judges are strictly prohibited by higher court judges from making any reference to the Constitution and they are subject to judiciary disciplinary proceedings if they ever attempt to interpret the Constitution on their own or to apply any Constitutional reasoning in their rulings.
Thus statutes that are found to be unconstitutional will always be enforced to the last jot and tittle regardless of their unconstitutionality, because the higher courts, inasmuch as they are even permitted to openly question the constitutionality of any statutory or administrative laws or rules, are strictly constrained to demurring politely in court while deferring any questions of constitutionality to the state legislatures or to Congress for “intent.”