Pretty much what the title says.
Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constituion says, “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.”
I assume they’d have to take such cases.
I am not sure that means they have to take those kinds of cases, though.
No, it does mean exactly that.
Supreme Court Procedures | United States Courts (uscourts.gov)
Second sentence, second paragraph: “Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case.”
They’ve also got appellate jurisdiction, meaning that cases can be appealed to them, but that comes with the ability to decide to let the lower appellate court’s ruling stand.
The Supreme Court being the court of original jurisdiction certainly means that no other court can take those cases. But wouldn’t it still leave open the possibility of no court at all taking those cases?
Thank you-That is what I was trying to get at. It is like saying that, if I were the only one that could spank my child, I am then required to spank my child.
Actually this is an undecided issue.
They can choose not to hear state vs. state cases. Rule 17 of the Supreme Court Rules regards “Procedure in Original Action” Rule 17. Procedure in an Original Action | Supreme Court Rules | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute in which the Court “Court thereafter may grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that additional documents be filed, or require that other proceedings be conducted.”
However, it seems Alito and Thomas don’t agree with this.
ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Justice Alito, joined by Thomas: "In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf
But original jurisdiction doesn’t just apply to state vs. state cases, but to “all cases … in which a state shall be party”. That would also include, for instance, some rando crank suing the state of Nevada for not providing him with a girlfriend, or something. And there are a lot of rando cranks in the country.
According to this
Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers.
And I know that at least in NYS, there is a court that has jurisdiction in civil lawsuits against the state -
The New York State Court of Claims is the exclusive forum for civil litigation seeking damages against the State of New York or certain other State-related entities such as the New York State Thruway Authority, the City University of New York, the Olympic Regional Development Authority, the Roswell Park Cancer Institute Corporation and the New York State Power Authority
And that court couldn’t have jurisdiction if the SC had original and exclusive jurisdiction of any lawsuit that involved a state.
That would also include, for instance, some rando crank suing the state of Nevada for not providing him with a girlfriend, or something. And there are a lot of rando cranks in the country.
A lot of those are not technically against the state - they are against the warden who wouldn’t allow the conjugal visit or whatever.
I just now found something else - according to Constitution Annotated
Under Supreme Court doctrine and long-standing congressional practice, the Court’s original jurisdiction is not necessarily exclusive. In some cases, Congress has granted the lower federal courts concurrent jurisdiction, meaning that cases subject to original Supreme Court jurisdiction may either be filed directly in the Supreme Court or in one of the lower federal courts.
Note that even with original jurisdiction the Supremes will appoint a special master to due initial trial stuff.
Brian
I wanted to go up to the next floor of a department store, and I saw an escalator with a sign saying
Dogs must be carried on this escalator.
But I didn’t have a dog, so I had to use the stairs.
Presumably if the court did not choose to hear a case for which it had jurisdiction, it could simply give it summary dismissal like a lower court does with frivolous lawsuits?
Does it not have to issue a ruling when it chooses not to hear an appeal from a lower court?
(Or how does that work if the appeal court already refused to hear the case? (Think Steve Bannon- SCOTUS I presume actually issued a note “we decline to hear this”?)
No.
Then the lower court ruling stands, if the Supreme Court declines to hear an appeal. Technically, it only applies in the states covered by that lower federal court, but other federal districts tend to consider it.
Not quite the same as if the SC heard it, and decided to affirm the lower court ruling – then it applies in the entire country.
A party who wants the Supreme Court to review a decision of a federal or state court files a “petition for writ of certiorari” with the Supreme Court. At least four justices must agree to grant the petition. However, the vast majority of such petitions are denied. As @Tim_T-Bonham.net says, the lower court ruling stands, but denial of cert by the SC is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and does not create any binding precedent.
That is incorrect. Putting your quote in context, the clause above it is
United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.
So the Federal judicial system has jurisdiction in the following cases involving states
2 or more states as sovereign entities
A state and a citizen of another state BUT not after the 11th Amendment.
A state and non US citizen or foreign country
Of note, the Federal government does not have jurisdiction between a State and its own citizens (residents). The only way that happens now is through the 14th Amendment + incorporation or amendments after that that specifically include states. That is a complicated issue especially considering state sovereignty but when combination with the above clause SCOTUS has decided that a case between a state and its resident is NOT in its original jurisdiction.
Please remember that the question isn’t where SCOTUS has jurisdiction, but where SCOTUS is forced to take a case and make a ruling.
I would find it hard to believe that the US judicial system would have a mechanism that would prevent an entity from filing a case in any court. Yes it may be thrown out almost immediately but we cannot have a system where Utah wants to file suit against Nebraska and SCOTUS declares they can’t even file. I believe Congress could pass a law requiring SCOTUS to accept cases under original jurisdiction but even if they didn’t or SCOTUS declared a law unconstitutional an amendment would be passed because as it directly affects all states, and if Congress didn’t act you would have a Article V convention.
I am not proposing such a case.
I am asking if there cases that are filed that then have to be heard then ruled on, instead of being sent back without comment.
Considering they refuse cases even when it would resolve conflicts between two circuits I think we have answered the question
Must take original jurisdiction cases.
Cannot be forced to take any appellate case
Congress can ban them from taking any appellate case Congress chooses.
the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.