# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**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, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/21 "2024-07-02T04:50:00Z")
While currently the Supreme Court can (and does) deny certiorari to the vast majority of cases appealed to the court, prior to the Judiciary Act of 1891 all properly filed appeals _had_ to be heard by the SC as a matter of right. Just as Congress removed this requirement through its Constitutional powers, it could in the future legislate that the SC _must_ take up specific categories of appellate cases. ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/22 "2024-07-02T06:55:27Z")
There are still categories where the Supreme Court has mandatory appellate jurisdiction. Certain redistricting cases, for example, get heard by a three-judge panel in district court, and appeal is directly to the Supreme Court by right. That’s how the South Carolina redistricting case earlier this year got to the court; instead of granting cert, they simply [said that](https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/order-list.pdf) “Probable jurisdiction is noted” (page 2). ---
**Author:** ![whitetho](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whitetho/32/1059_2.png) [@whitetho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whitetho)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2024, 10:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/23 "2024-07-02T10:53:59Z")
In 2016, the Supreme Court declined to take the following original jurisdiction case: > **[Supreme Court Won't Hear Nebraska-Oklahoma Pot Lawsuit Against Colorado](https://www.westword.com/news/supreme-court-wont-hear-nebraska-oklahoma-pot-lawsuit-against-colorado-7723887)** > > In December 2014, we told you about a lawsuit in which the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down Amendment 64, the 2012 measure that legalized limited recreational marijuana sales in Colorado. Our headline:... “Supreme Court Won’t Hear Nebraska-Oklahoma Pot Lawsuit Against Colorado”. ---
**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 4, 2024, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/24 "2024-07-04T16:15:46Z")
> [@flurb](#): > > 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. Yes, sorry -that’s what I meant/thought. They do have to acknowledge they received it and declined to hear it? How long can it sit ignored before they must do something? (Must they?) I’m assuming by the end of the session in July, or if they have not responded by then the default is they’ve declined? ---
**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 4, 2024, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596/25 "2024-07-04T16:20:48Z")
> [@whitetho](#): > > In 2016, the Supreme Court declined to take the following original jurisdiction case: But as the article says, quoting the fed’s legal brief: > "this is not an appropriate case for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction. Entertaining the type of dispute at issue here — essentially that one State’s laws make it more likely that third parties will violate federal and state law in another State — would represent a substantial and unwarranted expansion of this Court’s original jurisdiction. So they declined to hear (possibly, they didn’t say) because it was not considered a valid instance of their original jurisdiction. I suppose that’s a call the court can make too - whether in fact the case actually falls under original jurisdiction. Presumably they’re telling the states “go sue in Colorado courts”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-there-cases-scotus-have-to-take-or-is-their-caseload-totally-up-to-them/1003596.md?page=1)