alter the circuit court boundaries are Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.512 (11th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.524 (23rd Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.527 (26th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.535 (34th Circuit), Mich. Comp. Laws 600.549b (50th Circuit), and Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.549e (53rd Circuit). 2 . This summary affirmance admittedly "extends no further than the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions,” Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 784 n. 5, 103 S.Ct. 1564, 75 L.Ed.2d 547 (1983), but because Wells squarely held that the plaintiff’s cause of action did not exist as a matter of law, the Supreme Court’s affir-mance of that holding makes it binding precedent until revisited by the Supreme Court. See Smith v. Boyle, 144 F.3d 1060, 1061 (7th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Kuhn v. Miller, No. 98-2012, 1999 WL 1000850,
holding that discrimination based on religion is subjected to strict scrutiny whether a claim arises under the establishment clause the free exercise clause of equal protection clause holding that the equal protection clause forbids prosecutors from challenging potential jurors solely on account of their race recognizing that wells precludes any oneperson onevote claim under the equal protection clause when challenging judicial elections holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause recognizing harassment claim under equal protection clause based on sexual orientation