When the Supreme Court divides 4-4 in a case coming up on a cert. petition, we know that means the lower court ruling stands and that there is no precedential value to that decision( i.e., it does not mean the lower court decision was right). That means, for example, that in the Zubik contraception case, if the Court divides 4-4 that does not mean the lower court decision was right, and he have the prospect of a continued circuit split, with the law in the 8th Circuit being different than the law in all the other circuits which have come out the other way.

But what about if the Court splits 4-4 in a case that has come up on a direct appeal, like Evenwel, or Person, both cases argued this term from a direct appeal. We know ordinarily that a Supreme Court opinion not to hear a case and to affirm or dismiss does mean the lower court got the result right, even if not for the right reasons.  Is it the same implication if the Court divides 4-4?  Are those decisions binding across the country?