| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
Case names, written in italics, list the name of a petitioner versus a respondent, as in
Roe v. Wade , for example.
Roe v. Wade , 410 U.S. 113 (1973). For a case on appeal, you can tell which party lost at the lower level of court by looking at the case name: The party unhappy with the decision of the lower court is the one bringing the appeal and is thus the petitioner, or the first-named party in the case. For example, in
Brown v. Board of Education (1954), Oliver Brown was one of the thirteen parents who brought suit against the Topeka public schools for discrimination based on racial segregation.
Most often, the petitioner is asking the Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari , a request that the lower court send up its record of the case for review. Once a writ of certiorari ( cert . for short) has been granted, the case is scheduled on the Court’s docket. The Supreme Court exercises discretion in the cases it chooses to hear, but four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. This is called the Rule of Four .
For decisions about
cert ., the Court’s Rule 10 (Considerations Governing Review on Writ of
Certiorari ) takes precedence.
”Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on
Certiorari .”
Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States . Adopted April 19, 2013, Effective July 1, 2013. http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2013RulesoftheCourt.pdf. The Court is more likely to grant
certiorari when there is a conflict on an issue between or among the lower courts. Examples of conflicts include (1) conflicting decisions among different courts of appeals on the same matter, (2) decisions by an appeals court or a state court conflicting with precedent, and (3) state court decisions that conflict with federal decisions. Occasionally, the Court will fast-track a case that has special urgency, such as
Bush v. Gore in the wake of the 2000 election.
Bush v. Gore , 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Past research indicated that the amount of interest-group activity surrounding a case before it is granted
cert. has a significant impact on whether the Supreme Court puts the case on its agenda. The more activity, the more likely the case will be placed on the docket.
Gregory A. Caldeira and John R. Wright. 1988. “Organized Interests and Agenda-Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court,”
American Political Science Review 82: 1109–1128. But more recent research broadens that perspective, suggesting that too much interest-group activity when the Court is considering a case for its docket may actually have diminishing impact and that external actors may have less influence on the work of the Court than they have had in the past.
Gregory A. Caldeira, John R. Wright, and Christopher Zorn. 2012. “Organized Interests and Agenda Setting in the U.S. Supreme Court Revisited.” Presentation at the Second Annual Conference on Institutions and Lawmaking, Emory University. http://polisci.emory.edu/home/cslpe/conference-institutions-law-making/2012/papers/caldeira_wright_zorn_cwzpaper.pdf. Still, the Court takes into consideration external influences, not just from interest groups but also from the public, from media attention, and from a very key governmental actor—the solicitor general.
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'American government' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|