As I understand it, the US Supreme Court is also the Supreme Court of Washington DC. Can it restrict its rulings to ruling as the Supreme Court of Washington DC, or do they automatically apply to the whole US?
Yes, this is inspired by the gun case before it.
Why do you understand it this way? The Supreme Court is the supreme federal appeals court. I’m almost certain it has no special authority over DC.
If my basic understanding is flawed, that would answer the question, but is it? Washington DC is a seperate legal unit, is it not?
There’s a special set of courts for the District. They’re established by Congress so they are a type of federal court, but they play the same role that state courts play in the states. There’s a Superior Court and a Court of Appeals. I would imagine an appeal lies to the Supreme Court in the same way as an appeal lies from the highest court in a state, by way of an application for certiorari, but I’ve not tracked that down.
There’s also the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, which is like other Federal Courts. An appeal lies from the DC District Court to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and from thence to the Supreme Court, in the same way as appeals from the other Circuits.
(Note: it’s been a while since I studied this stuff, so I could be wrong or outdated. maybe one of our US law-Dopers will be along shortly.)
IANAL, but the SCOTUS always gives reasons for its decisions. Strictly, the decision is limited to the case before it, but the justices will put that decision in the context of broader principles. In a case like this which arises in DC, I would think that it would be relatively easy for them to say that their decision was based on circumstances peculiar to the District, and would not apply to gun control by the States. However, that’s not because it’s the Supreme Court of DC, but because the District has special status under the Constitution.
SCOTUS can restrict its rulings to any jurisdiction it likes, if it decides to do so.
AFAIK, it never has, but it could. There would just be some sort of language along the lines of “in districts or jurisdictions other than X, we would be required to revisit this issue” in the majority opinion - and presto, lower courts in other jurisdictions would be more or less free to decide the issue for themselves.
If you’re talking about District of Columbia V. Heller, assume the ruling will apply in all jurisdictions, absent specific language to the contrary.
The District of Columbia Court of Appeals is the district’s equivalent of a state supreme court.
There is also a federal system for D.C. – the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
In both cases – the “state” system and the federal system – the U.S. Supreme Court can be appealed to.
To simplify things, only those areas specified in the Constitution – including, of course, the Elastic Clause – are the jurisdiction of the Federal government. The minimum age to marry, the requirements to divorce, the maximum legal speed for a vehicle, the licensing requirements for an optician, a bank, an insurance agency, a plumber – they’re all state jurisdiction, not federal. (In some cases, of course, they’re local, but they’re local by delegation from the state, which could revoke that delegation if it wishes.) On a normal day, as a general rule, almost your only direct contact with the Feds. will be your mail delivery. (Obviously, part of the money you earn that day is withheld for Federal taxes, you may have a job where Federal regs. are applicable, etc. – but we’re talking Joe Citizen and direct contact.)
The District of Columbia – and, I believe, the handful of territories the U.S. still owns: Guam, American Samoa, half the Virgin Islands, etc. – fall in a different category. By Constitutional provision, Congress has the same authority over them as the states do over their land area. This can and usually is delegated to local authority – the City of Washington, territorial governments, etc. But the court system for each is a part of the Federal Court System. Quite literally, to speed in Washington D.C. becomes “a federal case.”
To add one thing, the Fourteenth Amendment provided that states could not infringe upon the rights of U.S. citizens/people/residents, but the way in which that has been implemented is by ‘incorporation’ of each right as a case comes up involving it. There are about a half dozen enumerated rights which have not been incorporated – and the ‘right to bear arms’ is one. The Supremes could tailor their ruling in the upcoming case to what Congress may or may not do as regards the land it has direct jurisdiction over – i.e., D.C. and the territories – without addressing whether it has any powers vis-a-vis the rights of state residents.
There is no “City of Washington,” not since the 19th century. There is just one political entity, and that is the District of Columbia.
While this is technically true – the D.C. courts are established by Congress under federal law – it is slightly misleading. The D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Court of Appeals are pretty close equivalents to a state court system.
To throw one more out there, there’s also another Circuit Court of Appeal in D.C.: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which hears patent, trademark, and certain other appeals.
There is, in fact, a city of “Washington,” it’s just that it’s the same thing as the District of Columbia. See Washington, D.C. - Wikipedia
That’s correct. Note the language of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, which describes cases eligible for appeal from state supreme courts to the United States Supreme Court:
To emphasize for the benefit of the OP, there is only one Supreme Court of the United States, but it gains jurisdiction of cases in various ways. It has no special status as “the Supreme Court of Washington, DC”, and appeals from the DC courts are treated exactly the same as appeals from state courts.
To be sure, an appeal from the DC court can raise different issues, because the DC government is an agent of federal sovereignty instead of a state. Polycarp has addressed these points.
Done and dusted. Thanks, guys. Score another one for the SDMB.