Imagine a court case in progress in the USA, specifically a case at the first level of the courts (i.e. it is a district court case and the court is a trial court, not any kind of appeal court). During the trial, the judge, plaintiff and defendant are all in agreement that a particular case is relevant as a precedent. However, that precedent case was decided at a lower level of appeal than the Supreme Court. During the district court trial case, the Supreme Court agrees to hear an appeal of the precedent case.
I can imagine two opposite points of view:
(1) Given that the Supreme Court is the highest appeal court in the USA, its decision will be important, and the trial should be suspended until that important decision has been made.
(2) People are presumed to know the law, but it's not possible to know what future decisions the Supreme Court of the USA will make. Therefore, the existing written precedents should be relied upon in their present form, and the case at trial should continue without delay.
We also have the possibility that, for example, the plaintiff anticipates, based on knowing the track records of the judges on the Supreme Court, that the Supreme Court will reverse the judgment of the first appeal court in the precedent case. If that reversal would be good for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff could use argument (1) above. If such a reversal would be bad for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff could use argument (2) above.
How does the trial court judge decide whether to suspend the trial or to continue the trial without delay? What does the law say is supposed to happen?