# Has the supreme court ever taken on a case and then not decided?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [March 23, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464 "2008-03-23T21:23:12Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Paddy\_O\_Furniture](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paddy_O_Furniture)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2008, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/1 "2008-03-23T21:23:12Z")
Garner 9 abstensions, so to speak? Just let the case carry over to the next court after someone retires or some vacancy is filled?
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [March 23, 2008, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/2 "2008-03-23T22:02:27Z")
Nine abstentions? Highly unlikely.
But what does happen, regularly, is that cases are DIGged – shorthand for “Dismissed as Improvidently Granted.” This occurs when four justices have voted to grant certiorari, and then for some reason a consensus arises among the justices that “we should not hear this case.” In such a situation, it’s as though they’d refused certiorari in the first place – the lower court decision (highest state court or, usually, Federal Appeals Court) stands as law for the area it has jurisdiction over.
---
### Author:  [@anson2995](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/anson2995)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2008, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/3 "2008-03-24T00:28:42Z")
[QUOTE=Paddy O’Furniture]
Garner 9 abstensions, so to speak? Just let the case carry over to the next court after someone retires or some vacancy is filled?
[/QUOTE]
The justices decide which cases they want to hear, so it’s unlikely that they would vote to hear a case but then express no interest in resolving it.
---
### Author:  [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2008, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/4 "2008-03-24T01:33:47Z")
Occasionally, when a seat is unfilled (say, after the death or resignation of a justice and before his successor is appointed), the court will end up with a 4-4 vote on a case. In that case, the lower court ruling stands.
---
### Author:  [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2008, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/5 "2008-03-24T02:47:29Z")
[QUOTE=RealityChuck]
Occasionally, when a seat is unfilled (say, after the death or resignation of a justice and before his successor is appointed), the court will end up with a 4-4 vote on a case. In that case, the lower court ruling stands.
[/QUOTE]
More often, they set it for reargument after the new justice has been appointed and confirmed, effectively with him having the tie-breaking vote. The 4-4 vote resulting in the lower court ruling standing (but without precedential value outside the jurisdiction of the lower court) happens when there is a full court but one justice recuses himself because, e.g., he has a financial interest in one of the companies involved in the suit, he prosecuted the case while Attorney General, etc.
---
### Author:  [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)
#### Post date: [March 24, 2008, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/has-the-supreme-court-ever-taken-on-a-case-and-then-not-decided/442464/6 "2008-03-24T03:02:00Z")
In criminal cases, there’s also the possibility of the death of the accused before the Court renders its decision. In that case, the appeal abates. (This happened a few years ago with the Ken Lay case, although in that case it was at the Federal Court of Appeals level, not the Supreme Court.)