# Are there cases SCOTUS have to take, or is their caseload totally up to them? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [July 1, 2024, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596 "2024-07-01T20:00:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/1 "2024-07-01T20:00:29Z")
Pretty much what the title says. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/2 "2024-07-01T20:16:41Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/3 "2024-07-01T20:22:04Z")
I am not sure that means they _have_ to take those kinds of cases, though. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/4 "2024-07-01T20:35:41Z")
No, it does mean exactly that. [Supreme Court Procedures | United States Courts (uscourts.gov)](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Original%20jurisdiction%20means%20that%20the,Court%20to%20hear%20a%20case.) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/5 "2024-07-01T20:58:13Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/6 "2024-07-01T21:37:24Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/7 "2024-07-01T22:38:46Z")
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](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_17) 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](https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/8 "2024-07-01T22:46:12Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/9 "2024-07-01T23:07:26Z")
According to [this](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Original%20jurisdiction%20means%20that%20the,and%20other%20high%2Dranking%20ministers.) > 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](https://ww2.nycourts.gov/COURTS/nyscourtofclaims/index.shtml) 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. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/10 "2024-07-01T23:18:07Z")
I just now found something else - according to [Constitution Annotated](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S2-C2-2/ALDE_00001220/#:~:text=Article%20III%2C%20Section%202%2C%20Clause,Court%20shall%20have%20original%20Jurisdiction.) > 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. ---
**Author:** ![N9IWP](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/n9iwp/32/3154_2.png) [@N9IWP](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/N9IWP)\ **Post date:** [July 1, 2024, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/11 "2024-07-01T23:26:40Z")
Note that even with original jurisdiction the Supremes will appoint a special master to due initial trial stuff. > **[Special master](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_master)** > > In the law of the United States, a special master is an official appointed by a judge to ensure judicial orders are followed, or in the alternative, to hear evidence on behalf of the judge and make recommendations to the judge as to the disposition of a matter. The special master should not be confused with the traditional common law concept of a master, a judge of the High Court entrusted to deal with summary and administrative matters falling short of a full trial. > In the federal judiciary of... Brian ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/12 "2024-07-02T00:15:08Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![md-2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@md-2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md-2000)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/13 "2024-07-02T01:01:11Z")
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”?) ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/14 "2024-07-02T03:12:39Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > Does it not have to issue a ruling when it chooses not to hear an appeal from a lower court? 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. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/15 "2024-07-02T03:25:57Z")
> [@md-2000](#): > > Does it not have to issue a ruling when it chooses not to hear an appeal from a lower court? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/16 "2024-07-02T03:45:25Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/17 "2024-07-02T03:49:30Z")
Please remember that the question isn’t where SCOTUS has jurisdiction, but where SCOTUS is _forced_ to take a case and make a ruling. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/18 "2024-07-02T04:04:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/19 "2024-07-02T04:08:54Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > 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. 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_. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/20 "2024-07-02T04:16:49Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596.md?page=2)