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. [1] Notably, the Supreme Court of the United States occasionally grants a petition of the writ of certiorari, only to later DIG the case. [2]
The Supreme Court normally DIGs a case through a per curiam decision, [lower-alpha 1] usually without giving reasons, [2] but rather issuing a one-line decision: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." However, justices sometimes file separate opinions, and the opinion of the Court may instead give reasons for the DIG.
A DIG can come as a surprise or disappointment to parties who have put significant effort into getting a case to the Court, to third parties who have filed amicus briefs to express their views to the Court, or to members of the public expecting resolution of a high-profile dispute. [1] However, respondents who had urged the Court not to take a case in the first place may seek to convince the Court to DIG the case, leaving their lower-court victory intact and avoiding a potentially unfavorable precedent.
In most cases, the reasons for a DIG fall into three main categories: [2]
It has not always been clear how many votes are needed to DIG a case. By custom, it takes only four votes to grant certiorari, not a majority of five, so it has been suggested that six votes should be required to DIG a case (i.e., four justices could insist on keeping the case). [3] Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has DIGged some cases over four justices' dissent, such as Medellin v. Dretke (2005), Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson (2010), and Boyer v. Louisiana (2012).
Because per curiam opinions are issued from the Court as an institution, these opinions lack the attribution of who authored or joined the decision. Sometimes, the Supreme Court DIGs a case through a simple docket order, rather than issuing even a per curiam opinion. (See Other cases below.) Accordingly, the lists below may not include every case with a DIG.
Case name | Opinion | Granted | Argued | Decided | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Moyle v. United States Idaho v. United States | No. 23-726 , 603 U.S. ___ | 5 Jan 2024 | 24 Apr 2024 | 27 Jun 2024 | One line (which also included vacating the stays that the Supreme Court had previously granted). Kagan concurred, joined by Sotomayor and in part by Jackson. Barrett concurred, joined by Roberts and Kavanaugh. Jackson concurred in part and dissented in part. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and in part by Gorsuch. |
Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski | No. 22-105 , 599 U.S. ___ | 8 Dec 2022 | 21 Mar 2023 | 23 Jun 2023 | Footnote 7 in Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski . [lower-alpha 2] |
In re Grand Jury | 21-1397 | 3 Oct 2022 [lower-alpha 3] | 9 Jan 2023 | 23 Jan 2023 | One line. [lower-alpha 4] |
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco | 20-1775 | 29 Oct 2021 [lower-alpha 5] | 23 Feb 2022 | 15 Jun 2022 | One line. Roberts concurred, joined by Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. |
United States v. Texas | 21-588 | 22 Oct 2021 [lower-alpha 6] | 1 Nov 2021 | 10 Dec 2021 | One line. Sotomayor dissented without an opinion. Argued and announced with Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson . |
Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2021) | 19-963 | 15 Jun 2020 [lower-alpha 7] | 8 Dec 2020 | 25 Jan 2021 | One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. (2019). |
Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian | 18-459 | 4 Jan 2019 [lower-alpha 8] | 15 Apr 2019 | 23 Apr 2019 | One line. |
City of Hays v. Vogt | 16-1495 | 28 Sep 2017 [lower-alpha 9] | 20 Feb 2018 | 29 May 2018 | One line. Gorsuch was recused. |
28 Sep 2017 [lower-alpha 10] | 16 Jan 2018 | 22 Jun 2018 | One line. Argued and announced with Ortiz v. United States . | ||
Duncan v. Owens | 14-1516 | 1 Oct 2015 [lower-alpha 11] | 12 Jan 2016 | 20 Jan 2016 | One line. |
City and County of San Francisco v. Sheehan | No. 13-1412 , 575 U.S. ___(2015) | 25 November 2014 | 23 March 2015 | 18 May 2015 | |
Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall | 571 U.S. 83 | 24 Jun 2013 [lower-alpha 12] | 13 Nov 2013 | 10 Dec 2013 | One line. Breyer dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. |
Madigan v. Levin | 571 U.S. 1 | 18 Mar 2013 [lower-alpha 13] | 7 Oct 2013 | 15 Oct 2013 | One line. |
Boyer v. Louisiana | 11-9953 | 5 Oct 2012 [lower-alpha 14] | 14 Jan 2013 | 29 Apr 2013 | One line. Alito concurred, joined by Scalia and Thomas. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan. |
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards | 10-708 | 20 Jun 2011 [lower-alpha 15] | 28 Nov 2011 | 28 Jun 2012 | One line. |
Vasquez v. United States | 11-199 | 28 Nov 2011 [lower-alpha 16] | 21 Mar 2012 | 2 Apr 2012 | One line. |
Tolentino v. New York | 563 U.S. 123 | 15 Nov 2010 [lower-alpha 17] | 21 Mar 2011 | 29 Mar 2011 | One line. |
Robertson v. United States ex rel. Watson | 560 U.S. 272 | 14 Dec 2009 [lower-alpha 18] | 31 Mar 2010 | 24 May 2010 | One line. Roberts dissented, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Sotomayor. Sotomayor dissented, joined by Kennedy. |
Sullivan v. Florida | 560 U.S. 181 | 4 May 2009 [lower-alpha 19] | 9 Nov 2009 | 17 May 2010 | One line. |
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2009) | 556 U.S. 178 | 9 Jun 2008 [lower-alpha 20] | 3 Dec 2008 | 31 Mar 2009 | One line. This was the Supreme Court's second time hearing the case, following Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Williams (2007). |
Bell v. Kelly | 555 U.S. 55 | 12 May 2008 [lower-alpha 21] | 12 Nov 2008 | 17 Nov 2008 | One line. |
Roper v. Weaver | 550 U.S. 598 | 7 Dec 2006 [lower-alpha 22] | 21 Mar 2007 | 21 May 2007 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Roberts concurred in the result. Scalia dissented, joined by Thomas and Alito. |
Toledo-Flores v. United States | 549 U.S. 69 | 3 Apr 2006 [lower-alpha 23] | 3 Oct 2006 | 5 Dec 2006 | One line. Argued and announced with Lopez v. Gonzales . |
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc. | 548 U.S. 124 | 31 Oct 2005 [lower-alpha 24] | 21 Mar 2006 | 22 Jun 2006 | One line. Roberts was recused. |
Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Williams | 547 U.S. 516 | 12 Dec 2005 [lower-alpha 25] | 26 Apr 2006 | 5 Jun 2006 | One paragraph. The Court initially granted review of only Question 1 of the cert petition. After hearing arguments, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted, but simultaneously issued a grant, vacate, remand of the entire cert petition in light of Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. , which had been decided the same day. |
Maryland v. Blake | 546 U.S. 72 | 18 Apr 2005 [lower-alpha 26] | 1 Nov 2005 | 14 Nov 2005 | One line. |
Medellín v. Dretke | 544 U.S. 660 | 10 Dec 2004 [lower-alpha 27] | 28 Mar 2005 | 23 May 2005 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Ginsburg concurred, join by Scalia as to Part II. O'Connor dissented, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Breyer. Breyer dissented, joined by Stevens. Souter dissented. The Court later decided a related case, Medellín v. Texas (2008). |
Howell v. Mississippi | 543 U.S. 440 | 28 Jun 2004 [lower-alpha 28] | 29 Nov 2004 | 24 Jan 2005 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. |
Nike, Inc. v. Kasky | 539 U.S. 654 | 10 Jan 2003 | 23 Apr 2003 | 26 Jun 2003 | One line. Stevens concurred, joined by Ginsburg, and joined by Souter as to Part III. Kennedy dissented without an opinion. Breyer dissented, joined by O'Connor. |
Abdur'Rahman v. Bell | 537 U.S. 88 | 22 Apr 2002 | 6 Nov 2002 | 10 Dec 2002 | One line. Stevens dissented. |
Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley | 537 U.S. 1 | 19 Feb 2002 | 7 Oct 2002 | 15 Oct 2002 | One line. |
Mathias v. WorldCom Technologies, Inc. | 535 U.S. 682 | 5 Mar 2001 [lower-alpha 29] | 5 Dec 2001 | 20 May 2002 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor was recused. |
Adams v. Florida Power Corp. | 535 U.S. 1 | 3 Dec 2001 | 20 Mar 2002 | 1 Apr 2002 | One line. |
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta | 534 U.S. 103 | 26 Mar 2001 | 31 Oct 2001 | 27 Nov 2001 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. This was the Supreme Court's third time hearing the case, following Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña (1995) and Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater (2000). |
Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett | 531 U.S. 356 | 11 Oct 2000 | 21 Feb 2001 | ||
District of Columbia v. Tri County Industries, Inc. | 531 U.S. 287 | 10 Jan 2001 | 17 Jan 2001 | One line. | |
Ricci v. Arlington Heights | 523 U.S. 613 | 21 Apr 1998 | 4 May 1998 | One line. | |
Rogers v. United States | 522 U.S. 252 | 5 Nov 1997 | 14 Jan 1998 | Stevens wrote the plurality opinion, joined by Thomas, Ginsburg, and Breyer. O'Connor concurred in the result, joined by Scalia. Kennedy dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Souter. | |
Adams v. Robertson | 520 U.S. 83 | 14 Jan 1997 | 3 Mar 1997 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. | |
Grimmett v. Brown | 519 U.S. 233 | 6 Jan 1997 | 14 Jan 1997 | One line. | |
Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Brown | 511 U.S. 117 | 1 Mar 1994 | 4 Apr 1994 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. O'Connor dissented, joined by Rehnquist and Kennedy. | |
Tennessee v. Middlebrooks | 510 U.S. 124 | 1 Nov 1993 | 13 Dec 1993 | One line. Blackmun dissented without an opinion. | |
Cavanaugh v. Roller | 510 U.S. 42 | 8 Nov 1993 | 30 Nov 1993 | One line. | |
Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha v. U. S. Philips Corp. | 510 U.S. 27 | 12 Oct 1993 | 30 Nov 1993 | The per curiam includes an explanation of its reasons. Stevens dissented, joined by Blackmun. | |
Hadley v. United States | 506 U.S. 19 | 4 Nov 1992 | 16 Nov 1992 | One line. | |
Montana v. Imlay | 506 U.S. 5 | 7 Oct 1992 | 3 Nov 1992 | One line. Stevens concurred. White dissented. | |
PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez | 503 U.S. 257 | 26 Feb 1992 | 9 Mar 1992 | One line. | |
Gibson v. Florida Bar | 502 U.S. 104 | 6 Nov 1991 | 4 Dec 1991 | One line. | |
Ohio v. Huertas | 498 U.S. 336 | 16 Jan 1991 | 22 Jan 1991 | One line. | |
Parker v. Duggar | 498 U.S. 308 | 7 Nov 1990 | 22 Jan 1991 | ||
White v. United States | 439 U.S. 5 | 3 Oct 1989 | 16 Oct 1989 | One line. White dissented without an opinion. |
The following cases were dismissed as improvidently granted by the Court through a docket order rather than a published opinion. The Supreme Court's online docket search system "contains complete information regarding the status of cases filed since the beginning of the 2001 Term". Orders from before 2001 may appear instead in the United States Reports .
Case name | Order | Granted | Argued | Decided | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ardoin v. Robinson | 21-1596 | 28 Jun 2022 | N/A | 26 Jun 2023 | One paragraph/docket order [lower-alpha 30] |
PEM Entities LLC v. Levin | 16-492 | 27 Jun 2017 | N/A | 10 Aug 2017 | One line/docket order. |
580 U.S. 993 | 28 Jun 2016 | N/A | 17 Nov 2016 | Docket order with explanation. | |
Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi v. IndyMac MBS, Inc. | 573 U.S. 988 | 10 Mar 2014 | N/A | 29 Sep 2014 | One line/docket order. |
Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice | 571 U.S. 985 | 27 Jun 2013 | N/A | 4 Nov 2013 | One line/docket order. Before the DIG, the Court certified a question of Oklahoma law to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, and received its response. |
McCarver v. North Carolina | 533 U.S. 975 | 26 Mar 2001 | N/A | 25 Sep 2001 | One line/docket order. |
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 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.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down six per curiam opinions during its 2004 term, which began October 4, 2004 and concluded October 3, 2005.
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.
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.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nineteen per curiam opinions during its 2009 term, which began on October 5, 2009, and concluded October 3, 2010.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down nine per curiam opinions during its 2001 term, which began October 1, 2001, and concluded October 6, 2002.
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.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down fourteen per curiam opinions during its 2011 term, which began October 3, 2011 and concluded September 30, 2012.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eight per curiam opinions during its 2013 term, which began October 7, 2013 and concluded October 5, 2014.
Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that a United States District Court may not decline jurisdiction over a case that has properly been removed to it from state court on the ground that the court is backlogged with other cases, and that a District Court's refusal to hear a case on this ground may be reviewed by a writ of mandamus.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down eighteen per curiam opinions during its 2015 term, which began October 5, 2015 and concluded October 2, 2016.
Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81 (2015), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States clarified procedures for removing a class action lawsuit from state court to federal court. The case involved a dispute about revenue from oil and gas leases in which the defendant filed a motion to remove the case from a state court in Kansas to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. However, the plaintiff argued that the defendant's motion was defective because the defendant's notice of removal did not include evidence demonstrating that the amount in controversy satisfied the jurisdictional threshold. The United States District Court for the District of Kansas ultimately ruled the case should be returned to the state court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit declined to review the district court's decision.
Luis v. United States, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the pre-trial restraint of assets needed to retain a defendant's counsel of choice when those assets have not been used in conjunction with criminal activity.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2017 term, which began October 2, 2017, and concluded September 30, 2018.
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), was a case before the Supreme Court of the United States dealing with compensation for private property owners when the use of that property is taken from them by state or local governments, under the Due Process Clause and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The immediate question asks if private land owners must exhaust all state-offered venues for mediation before seeking action in the federal courts. The case specifically addresses the Court's prior decision from the 1985 case Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, which had previously established that all state court venues must be exhausted first, but which has since resulted in several split decisions among circuit courts. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2019 to overturn part of Williamson County that required state venue action be taken first, allowing taking-compensation cases to be brought directly to federal court.
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.
Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. 482 (2022), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court declined to extend Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents.
Vega v. Tekoh, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 6–3, that an officer's failure to read Miranda warnings to a suspect in custody does not alone provide basis for a claim of civil liability under Section 1983 of United States Code. In the case, the Court reviewed its previous holding of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) to determine whether respondent Carlos Vega violated plaintiff Terence Tekoh's constitutional rights by failing to read Tekoh his Miranda rights prior to interrogation. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the six-justice majority that Tekoh's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated, as Miranda rights are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution."