What’s it take to get to the supreme court of the land as an individual? Could it be as simple as filing suit against the feds for some perceived wrong?
Could my most recent speeding ticket perrcievably get me there, long shot or not?
Perhaps the police violated my fourth amendment rights and searched my home on a contentious basis, but found nothing. They go home and try to sweep it under the rug. Does this give me standing to take it through the system somehow?
The U.S. Supreme Court interprets the U.S. Constitution and generally rules on cases already decided in the lower courts. They base their decisions on Constitutional law and precedent.
In theory, you could have your case heard by the U.S. Supreme court if your case required a Constitutional ruling. It would just take a whole lot of time and money and they only hear a fraction of the cases presented to them. A lot of landmark cases started out as matters between individuals and various levels of government. You can’t just have a simple complaint that affects you personally. That is what the lower courts are for. Your case would need to have an overarching effect on Constitutional law for everyone (think Roe vs Wade, Miranda vs. Arizona and lots of others).
State Supreme Courts are similar but are limited to the state in question unless the decision conflicts with U.S. Constitutional law.
No, you can appeal as far as your Circuit Court on your initiative (and your dime), but the road ends there—unless four justices vote to grant certiorari in your case. They might do that for various reasons, including personal conviction that a great injustice must be righted, but it’s much more likely they’ll do it in cases they perceive as having national importance, and being ripe and proper for a decision. A split between the circuits, with one rule prevailing on the West Coast and the opposite being controlling law in the Deep South, historically has prompted Supreme Court review.
Disputes between states are the only cases that are guaranteed to go to the Supreme Court—because the Constitution says that’s where they are to be filed in the first place.
No. Supreme Court cases do not have to involve overreaching Constitutional issues. The Supreme Court resolves more mundane disputes all the time.
Looking at a list of cases the Court agreed to review in 2017:
Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro:
Are automotive service advisors entitled to overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act?
Murphy v. Smith:
A case in which the Court will decide whether the parenthetical phrase “not to exceed 25 percent,” as used in 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(d)(2), means any amount up to 25 percent (as four circuits hold), or whether it means exactly 25 percent (as the Seventh Circuit holds).
Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis:
A case in which the Court will decide whether the National Labor Relations Act prohibits enforcement of an agreement requiring employees to resolve disputes with the employer through individual arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.
Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC:
A case in which the Court will decide whether the Alien Tort Statute prohibits corporate liability.
Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, Inc.:
A case in which the Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether the safe harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e), which prohibits a trustee from avoiding a transfer made by or to a financial institution, includes transfers where the benefit and detriment of the transfer impact companies that are not financial institutions.
PEM Entities LLC v. Levin:
A case in which the Court will resolve a circuit split as to whether bankruptcy courts should apply a federal rule of decision (as five circuits have held) or a state law rule of decision (as two circuits have held) when deciding to recharacterize a debt claim in bankruptcy as a capital contribution.
Best way to get to SCOTUS? Join the DOJ and become the solicitor general for the federal government.
While SCOTUS grants cert in only 4% of cases appealed from circuit courts, it grants cert in around 70% of cases when the solicitor general is the party filing cert petitions.
How can the phase “not to exceed 25 percent” possibly be interpreted to mean “exactly 25 percent.” There must be some other conflict there.
No, it’s pretty much an issue of statutory interpretation, as explained here:
In Murphy v. Smith, the Supreme Court is charged with interpreting statutory language that on its face appears straightforward. In prisoners’ federal civil-rights cases that result in an award of money damages and attorney’s fees, the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that “a portion of the judgment (not to exceed 25 percent) shall be applied to satisfy the amount of attorney’s fees awarded against the defendant.” But that language turned out to be anything but simple, as evidenced by Justice Samuel Alito’s lament early in Wednesday’s argument that “I mean, this language can be read either way, and it’s very difficult.”
Here is the crux of the difficulty: Plaintiff Charles Murphy argues that the phrase “not to exceed 25 percent” grants district courts discretion to order that any amount, from a nominal sum up to a maximum of 25 percent of a prisoner’s award, be devoted to attorney’s fees. But the defendants, two prison guards, argue that the PLRA requires prisoners to pay attorney’s fees in full unless those fees exceed 25 percent of the damages award. That means that, in their view, prisoners must contribute toward attorney’s fees 25 percent of their money judgment or 100 percent of awarded attorney’s fees, whichever is less
Sorry — double post.
I had a workers’ compensation case once where the injured worker filed all possible appeals from his case, acting in pro se. We responded with appropriate briefs at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board, and at the California appellate and supreme courts. When he filed his Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States, I suggested to my client that we probably did not need to file a response, since the petition was unlikely to be granted. They agreed. It wasn’t.
After reading some transcripts, if a case makes it on constitutional grounds the the focus will be on that. Whether I’m found guilty of whatever crime that was accociated with the constitutional violation seems to be of secondary concern, and rightfully so.
Given the associated cost and time it takes to get there, Iimagine that it’s exceedingly rare that a a case involving speeding or PI makes it. That is, that a case runs from the lowest court in the land to the highest.
But how often does this happen? Has the dispute over the ownership of a chicken, or some other matter thats trivial on the surface made it?
Keep in mind that things like disputes over a chicken will generally not be federal issues, but state issues. The SCOTUS will not get involved in a state issue unless there is some conflict with federal law or the US constitution. You most likely will have to settle for your state’s SC to resolve the chicken issue.
OTOH, the SCOTUS is now considering the issue of whether or not a baker in Colorado has to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. That’s not too far from a dispute over chicken ownership.
Well, the underlying facts in even important constitutional cases can be trivial. Wickard v. Filburn involved a farmer growing wheat to feed his farm animals, but the ultimate issue hinged on the Court’s interpretation of the constitution’s commerce clause. So what started off with fairly mundane facts has turned into one of the more important cases in Constitutional law, and one that has had significant impact on the scope of modern federal authority.
And it’s these I’m interested in really. Most would kinda expect to see a state v state argument or federal labor law argument before the court.
Who’d have expected gay wedding cakes to be litigated to that level? Perhaps the famous Hatfield and McCoy hog could have made it if they had litigated instead of murdered each other.
Also keep in mind, appeals courts determine if there has been an error in the handling of the case. they are not there for a second opinion because the trial didn’t end in the verdict you wanted. An appeal must show how the court failed to follow procedure properly or misinterpreted law or procedures. (see if I read that right, the appeal question was “does the law say award amounts portion to lawyers are discretionary or pay in full”?)
Getting to the SCOTUS
Take the Washington Ave exit off the I-396, then take a left … then right on Independence Ave, then left again on 2nd St … couple blocks and it’s on your left …
[Legal] practice, practice, practice!
He then filed with the World Court? :o
I had a pro se guy once - almost but not quite a vexatious litigator - who filed copies of his briefs with us and also with the White House, the U.S. Attorney General, the governor and attorney general of my state, the World Court, the International Criminal Court, the International Postal Union and the Vatican.
Help me out, because I’m still not getting it. Those sound the same to me. I’m a prisoner, I sue, I win, I get $100. Now what’s the argument?
Best I can tell, the prisoner says “The court can set any amount for attorney fees, from $0.01 to $25.” and the guards are saying “The court MUST set the amount at the attorney’s fees, up to $25.”
Don’t you just hate over-achievers? 