Certiorari before judgment

Last updated

A petition for certiorari before judgment, in the Supreme Court of the United States, is a petition for a writ of certiorari in which the Supreme Court is asked to immediately review the decision of a United States District Court, without an appeal having been decided by a United States Court of Appeals, for the purpose of expediting the proceedings and obtaining a final decision.

Contents

Certiorari before judgment is rarely granted. Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that this procedure will be followed "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court." A writ of certiorari before judgment may be granted only in federal cases, and is not necessary in those cases where a statute authorizes a direct appeal from a District Court to the Supreme Court.

Well-known cases in which the Supreme Court has granted certiorari before judgment and heard the case on an expedited basis have included Ex parte Quirin (1942), U.S. v. United Mine Workers (1947), Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), U.S. v. Nixon (1974), Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981), Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. (1982), U.S. v. Booker (2005), Department of Commerce v. New York (2019), [1] and Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (2021). [2]

In U.S. v. Windsor (2013), both sides filed petitions for certiorari before judgment, but it was only granted after judgment by the Second Circuit.

List of petitions granted

The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment only three times between 1988 and 2004, and zero times from then until February 2019. Since 2019, the court has granted certiorari before judgment in more cases. [3]

Certiorari before judgment granted since 1988 [3] [4] [lower-alpha 1]
CaseDate granted
Clark v. Roemer June 28, 1991 [5]
Gratz v. Bollinger Dec 2, 2002 [6]
United States v. Fanfan Aug 2, 2004 [7]
Department of Commerce v. New York Feb 15, 2019 [8]
Trump v. NAACP June 28, 2019 [9]
McAleenan v. Vidal June 28, 2019 [9]
Ross v. California June 28, 2019 [10]
Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom Dec 3, 2020 [11]
High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis Dec 15, 2020 [12]
Robinson v. Murphy Dec 15, 2020 [13]
United States v. Higgs Jan 15, 2021 [14]
Gish v. Newsom Feb 8, 2021 [15]
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson Oct 22, 2021 [16]
United States v. Texas Oct 22, 2021 [17]
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. Dec 10, 2021 [18]
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina Jan 24, 2022 [19]
Merrill v. Caster Feb 7, 2022 [20]
Ardoin v. Robinson June 28, 2022 [21]
Brnovich v. Isaacson June 30, 2022 [22]
United States v. Texas July 21, 2022 [23]
Biden v. Nebraska Dec 1, 2022 [24]
Department of Education v. Brown Dec 12, 2022 [25]

See also

Notes

  1. ↑ Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (2020) (cert. granted June 28, 2019) is not included in this list because although the petition was for certiorari before judgment, the court of appeals decided the case before the Supreme Court granted the petition, so that certiorari was after judgment. United States v. Windsor (2013) (cert. granted December 7, 2012) is omitted for the same reason.

Related Research Articles

In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

In forma pauperis is a Latin legal term meaning "in the character or manner of a pauper". It refers to the ability of an indigent person to proceed in court without payment of the usual fees associated with a lawsuit or appeal.

The Judiciary Act of 1925, also known as the Judge's Bill or Certiorari Act, was an act of the United States Congress that sought to reduce the workload of the Supreme Court of the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2006 term, which began October 2, 2006 and concluded September 30, 2007.

<i>Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services</i>

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the terms "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." Both courts found DOMA to be unconstitutional, though for different reasons. The trial court held that DOMA violates the Tenth Amendment and Spending Clause. In a companion case, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, the same judge held that DOMA violates the Equal Protection Clause. On May 31, 2012, the First Circuit held the act violates the Equal Protection Clause, while federalism concerns affect the equal protection analysis, DOMA does not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment.

<i>Gill v. Office of Personnel Management</i>

Gill et al. v. Office of Personnel Management, 682 F.3d 1 is a United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision that affirmed the judgment of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the section that defines the term "marriage" as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and "spouse" as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down ten per curiam opinions during its 2010 term, which began October 4, 2010 and concluded October 1, 2011.

<i>Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management</i> Lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.

In law, an appeal is the process in which cases are reviewed by a higher authority, where parties request a formal change to an official decision. Appeals function both as a process for error correction as well as a process of clarifying and interpreting law. Although appellate courts have existed for thousands of years, common law countries did not incorporate an affirmative right to appeal into their jurisprudence until the 19th century.

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. ___ (2016), is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the adoption rights of same-sex couples. In 2007, a Georgia Superior Court granted adoption rights to V.L., the partner of E.L., the woman who gave birth to their three children. However, after moving back to Alabama, the couple split up. E.L. tried to block V.L. from seeing the children, but V.L. filed a lawsuit seeking visitation and other parental rights. On September 18, 2015, the Supreme Court of Alabama ruled that the state did not have to recognize the adoption judgment, saying that the Georgia court misapplied its own state law. The court voided the recognition of the adoption judgment in Alabama. V.L. petitioned the United States Supreme Court to stay the ruling during her appeal and allow her to see her children. On December 14, 2015, the Supreme Court stayed the ruling pending their action on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by V.L. On March 7, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court by per curiam summary disposition.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Petition for review</span>

In some jurisdictions, a petition for review is a formal request for an appellate tribunal to review the decision of a lower court or administrative body. If a jurisdiction utilizes petitions for review, then parties seeking appellate review of their case may submit a formal petition for review to an appropriate court. In United States federal courts, the term "petition for review" is also used to describe petitions that seek review of federal agency actions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 term per curiam opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States handed down seven per curiam opinions during its 2018 term, which began October 1, 2018, and concluded October 6, 2019.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

In direct response to election changes related to the COVID-19 pandemic and 2020 United States presidential election in Georgia; the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign launched numerous lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2021 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States</span> United States Supreme Court opinions for the term starting October 4, 2021 to October 2, 2022

The 2021 term of the Supreme Court of the United States began October 4, 2021, and concluded October 2, 2022. The table below illustrates which opinion was filed by each justice in each case and which justices joined each opinion.

The shadow docket refers to motions and orders in the Supreme Court of the United States in cases which have not yet reached final judgment, decision on appeal, and oral argument. This especially refers to stays and injunctions, but also includes summary decisions and grant, vacate, remand (GVR) orders. The phrase "shadow docket" was first used in this context in 2015 by University of Chicago Law professor William Baude.

Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case brought by Texas abortion providers and abortion rights advocates that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas Heartbeat Act, a law that outlaws abortions after six weeks. The Texas Heartbeat Act prohibits state officials from enforcing the ban but authorizes private individuals to enforce the law by suing anyone who performs, aids, or abets an abortion after six weeks. The law was structured this way to evade pre-enforcement judicial review because lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of state statutes are typically brought against state officials who are charged with enforcing the law, as the state itself cannot be sued under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___ (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that involved the Texas Heartbeat Act, also known as Senate Bill 8 or SB8, a state law that bans abortion once a "fetal heartbeat" is detected, typically six weeks into pregnancy. A unique feature of the Act, and challenges to it, is the delegation of enforcement to any and all private individuals who are authorized by the Act to file civil actions against abortion providers who violate it, and aiders and abetters, while state and local officials are prohibited from doing so. Opponents stated that the Act went against the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which, prior to its overturn in 2022, banned states from prohibiting abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy in favor of the woman's right to privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to administrative law and immigration.

References

  1. ↑ Order list: 586 U.S. ___, Friday, February 15, 2019
  2. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463.
  3. 1 2 Vladeck, Steve (January 25, 2022), "The rise of certiorari before judgment", SCOTUSblog
  4. ↑ Vladeck, Steve [@steve_vladeck] (December 12, 2022). "Supreme Court Grants of Certiorari "Before Judgment": 1988*–Present" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  5. ↑ Clark v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 1246 (1991)
  6. ↑ Gratz v. Bollinger, 537 U.S. 1044 (2002)
  7. ↑ United States v. Fanfan, 542 U.S. 956 (2004)
  8. ↑ Docket for No. 18-966, Department of Commerce v. New York
  9. 1 2 Docket for No. 18-587, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, consolidated with Trump v. NAACP and McAleenan v. Vidal
  10. ↑ Docket for No. 18-1214, Ross v. California
  11. ↑ Docket for No. 20A94, Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom
  12. ↑ High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 527 (2020)
  13. ↑ Docket for No. 20A95, Robinson v. Murphy
  14. ↑ United States v. Higgs, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 645 (2021)
  15. ↑ Docket for No. 20A120, Gish v. Newsom
  16. ↑ Docket for No. 21-463, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
  17. ↑ United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 14 (2021)
  18. ↑ Docket for No. 21-401, ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.
  19. ↑ Docket for No. 21-707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina
  20. ↑ Merrill v. Caster, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 879 (2022)
  21. ↑ Docket for No. 21A814, Ardoin v. Robinson
  22. ↑ Docket for No. 21A222, Brnovich v. Isaacson
  23. ↑ Docket for No. 22-58, United States v. Texas
  24. ↑ Docket for No. 22-506, Biden v. Nebraska
  25. ↑ Docket for No. 22-535, Department of Education v. Brown
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.