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 states 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." [1]

In some situations, the court has also granted certiorari before judgment so that it could review a case at the same time as a similar case that had already reached the court otherwise. [2]

The power to grant certiorari before judgment is provided by statute, which authorizes the Supreme Court to review "cases in the courts of appeals" by granting certiorari "before or after rendition of judgment or decree". [3] A party to the case may petition to the Supreme Court "at any time before judgment", [4] after a court of appeals has docketed the case. Only cases in a United States court of appeals are eligible, not any other court. [5] Any party can file the petition, regardless of which party originally prevailed in the district court. [6] [7]

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), [8] and Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson (2021). [9]

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. [10]

Certiorari before judgment granted since 1988 [10] [11] [lower-alpha 1]
CaseDate granted
Clark v. Roemer June 28, 1991 [12]
Gratz v. Bollinger Dec 2, 2002 [13]
United States v. Fanfan Aug 2, 2004 [14]
Department of Commerce v. New York Feb 15, 2019 [15]
Trump v. NAACP June 28, 2019 [16]
McAleenan v. Vidal June 28, 2019 [16]
Ross v. California June 28, 2019 [17]
Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom Dec 3, 2020 [18]
High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis Dec 15, 2020 [19]
Robinson v. Murphy Dec 15, 2020 [20]
United States v. Higgs Jan 15, 2021 [21]
Gish v. Newsom Feb 8, 2021 [22]
Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson Oct 22, 2021 [23]
United States v. Texas Oct 22, 2021 [24]
ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. Dec 10, 2021 [25]
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina Jan 24, 2022 [26]
Merrill v. Caster Feb 7, 2022 [27]
Ardoin v. Robinson June 28, 2022 [28]
Brnovich v. Isaacson June 30, 2022 [29]
United States v. Texas July 21, 2022 [30]
Biden v. Nebraska Dec 1, 2022 [31]
Department of Education v. Brown Dec 12, 2022 [32]
Moyle v. United States
Idaho v. United States		Jan 5, 2024 [33]

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 more certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".

The cert pool is a mechanism by which the Supreme Court of the United States manages the influx of petitions for certiorari ("cert") to the court. It was instituted in 1973, as one of the institutional reforms of Chief Justice Warren E. Burger on the suggestion of Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.

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.

<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."

Omega S. A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 541 F.3d 982, was a case decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that held that in copyright law, the first-sale doctrine does not act as a defense to claims of infringing distribution and importation for unauthorized sale of authentic, imported watches that bore a design registered in the Copyright Office. It is contrasted with Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Confession of error is a legal practice whereby the Solicitor General of the United States in his or her role representing the federal government before the Supreme Court of the United States admits a lower court incorrectly decided a case and it is thereby sent back for reconsideration. By confessing error, the Solicitor General declares that the federal government's position, which prevailed in the lower court, was wrong. The Supreme Court typically then vacates the lower court's judgment and remands the case to allow the lower court to consider it in light of the confession of error.

Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, Section 3, which defined the federal definition of marriage to be a union of a man and a woman, entirely excluding legally married same-sex couples. The District Court that originally heard the case ruled Section 3 unconstitutional. On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional, and denied appeal of Pedersen the next day.

<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.

Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. 352 (2015), was an American legal case in which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Arkansas prison policy which prohibited a Muslim prisoner from growing a short beard in accordance with his religious beliefs violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

V.L. v. E.L., 577 U.S. 404 (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.

<i>Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</i> 2020 United States Supreme Court case

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Benisek v. Lamone, 585 U.S. ____ (2018), and Lamone v. Benisek, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), were a pair of decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case dealing with the topic of partisan gerrymandering arising from the 2011 Democratic party-favored redistricting of Maryland. At the center of the cases was Maryland's 6th district which historically favored Republicans and which was redrawn in 2011 to shift the political majority to become Democratic via vote dilution. Affected voters filed suit, stating that the redistricting violated their right of representation under Article One, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution and freedom of association of the First Amendment.

Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States on the status of administrative law judges of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Court held that they are considered inferior officers of the United States and so are subject to the Appointments Clause and must be appointed through the President or other delegated officer of the United States, rather than hired. As "inferior" officers, their appointments are not subject to the Senate's advice and consent role.

<i>Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary</i> United States Supreme Court Case

Department of Justice v. House Committee on the Judiciary (2020), No. 19-1328, was a court decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The case weighs whether a committee of the House of Representatives can assert the House's "sole power of impeachment" to subpoena materials gathered as part of a federal grand jury investigation which are ordinarily secret. Due to changes in the government by the time of the 2020 election, many of the aspects leading to the case have become unnecessary, and the Supreme Court ruled the case moot in orders released in July 2021.

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 civil lawsuits contesting the election processes of Georgia. All of these were either dismissed or dropped.

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.

A grant of appellate review is dismissed as improvidently granted (DIG) when a court with discretionary appellate jurisdiction later decides that it should not review the case. Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case.

References

  1. ↑ 2023 Rules of the Supreme Court
  2. ↑ Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice (11th ed. 2019), Sec. 2.4
  3. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 1254(1)
  4. ↑ 28 U.S.C.   § 2101(e)
  5. ↑ Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice (11th ed. 2019), Sec. 6.1(b)(4)
  6. ↑ Shapiro et al., Supreme Court Practice (11th ed. 2019), Sec. 2.2, p. 2-12
  7. ↑ Lindgren & Marshall 1986 , p. 263
  8. ↑ Order list: 586 U.S. ___, Friday, February 15, 2019
  9. ↑ Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson, No. 21-463.
  10. 1 2 Vladeck, Steve (January 25, 2022), "The rise of certiorari before judgment", SCOTUSblog
  11. ↑ Vladeck, Steve [@steve_vladeck] (December 12, 2022). "Supreme Court Grants of Certiorari "Before Judgment": 1988*–Present" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  12. ↑ Clark v. Roemer, 501 U.S. 1246 (1991)
  13. ↑ Gratz v. Bollinger, 537 U.S. 1044 (2002)
  14. ↑ United States v. Fanfan, 542 U.S. 956 (2004)
  15. ↑ Docket for No. 18-966, Department of Commerce v. New York
  16. 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
  17. ↑ Docket for No. 18-1214, Ross v. California
  18. ↑ Docket for No. 20A94, Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom
  19. ↑ High Plains Harvest Church v. Polis, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 527 (2020)
  20. ↑ Docket for No. 20A95, Robinson v. Murphy
  21. ↑ United States v. Higgs, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S.Ct. 645 (2021)
  22. ↑ Docket for No. 20A120, Gish v. Newsom
  23. ↑ Docket for No. 21-463, Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
  24. ↑ United States v. Texas, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 14 (2021)
  25. ↑ Docket for No. 21-401, ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd.
  26. ↑ Docket for No. 21-707, Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina
  27. ↑ Merrill v. Caster, 595 U.S. ___, 142 S.Ct. 879 (2022)
  28. ↑ Docket for No. 21A814, Ardoin v. Robinson
  29. ↑ Docket for No. 21A222, Brnovich v. Isaacson
  30. ↑ Docket for No. 22-58, United States v. Texas
  31. ↑ Docket for No. 22-506, Biden v. Nebraska
  32. ↑ Docket for No. 22-535, Department of Education v. Brown
  33. ↑ Docket for No. 23-726, Moyle v. United States
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.