Do lower courts have an inherent duty to properly apply doctrine of this Supreme Court that confirms the applicability of the Statute of Limitations - as codified by 28 U.S.C. 2462 - to relief sought in civil actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission?

Can Summary Judgement be granted to a Plaintiff pursuant to collateral estoppel from a defendant's guilty plea and conviction in a parallel, and inextricably intertwined criminal proceeding, if the plea and conviction are invalid and under collateral attack due to structural errors that occurred at inception of the proceeding and which mandate automatic reversal ab initio?

Can lower courts arbitrarily ignore the mandate of this Court - most recently reaffirmed in Tolan v. Cotton, 572 US, 134 S. Ct., 188 L Ed 2d 895, 2014 US LEXIS 3112 - which requires that "in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, 'the evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor" - particularly when the evidence clearly supports the non-movant's position?

Do lower courts have an inherent duty to properly apply doctrine of this Supreme Court that confirms the applicability of the Statute of Limitations - as codified by 28 U.S.C. 2462 - to relief sought in civil actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission?