How does the Supreme Court refuse to review a case?

Answer 1

If the U.S. Supreme Court denies a petition for a writ of certiorari (a request to hear a case on appeal), then the decision of the lower court is final.

Denial of certiorari occurs in 98-99% of cases, and in no way implies that the court agrees with the lower court's decision. Denial only means that the case, as presented, isn't of sufficient importance to warrant a review, doesn't involve constitutional issues, conforms to a precedent already set, falls outside the court's jurisdiction, or is moot, etc.

Between 7,500 and 8,500 cases are presented for review each year, but the court can only choose 80-150 to hear, so the Justices have to limit themselves to those cases that have the greatest impact on the law and on society.

If a case is denied certiorari, the decision of the last "court of competent jurisdiction" to handle the case is affirmed and the case is concluded. Affirmation by default does not necessarily indicate the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court decision; nor does accepting a case for review necessarily mean the Court disagrees with the lower court decision.

Answer 2

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Before a case could get to the Supreme Court, it would have to go through at least two other court levels first.

The Supreme Court is primarily an appellate court. Appellate courts do not try a case all over again. They only determine points of law and whether the law was correctly applied.

At least one of the court levels a case would go through before going to the Supreme Court is an appellate court. If the law in a certain area is well settled, and has been confirmed by an appellate court, there is generally no point in the Supreme Court hearing such an appeal.

Answer 3

The Supreme Court votes whether to accept cases for review. If fewer than four justices express interest in hearing the case, the petition is rejected and noted: Cert. denied (certiorari denied).

Answer 4

There could be a number of reasons why this happens, and often "similar" cases are more different than they appear on their face. Considerations may include:

1. Changed composition of the Court. Justices are generally aware of they way a ruling will go on a particular issue and may not want to address it when the majority opinion could set a precedent they find unacceptable. Conversely, a majority may choose to grant certiorari on a matter rejected by an earlier Court for the same reason.
2. The matter may not yet be ripe for a decision. The case may not represent a significant national concern at one point in time, but later become important. One example addresses incorporation of the Second Amendment, an portion of the Bill of Rights that currently doesn't apply to the states, allowing individual states to regulate firearm access and use without intervention from the federal government. This became a major issue after the Supreme Court overturned a restrictive Washington, DC, gun law that infringed on citizens' Second Amendment rights. The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008), only applied to Washington, DC, because it is federal, not state, territory. This made a decision to hear a case related to Second Amendment rights of state citizens more compelling (ripe).
3. The earlier case may not have reached far enough to touch constitutional issues the Court felt needed to be addressed, or may have reached too far to touch constitutional issues that the Court may feel would be disruptive or set a dangerous precedent.
4. The justices may be aware that hearing a particular case will set a precedent affecting other, sometimes unrelated, matters they wish to control. An example of this would be the incremental decisions that allowed the concept of "corporate personhood" to override other precedents and change campaign finance laws.
5. They may need to hear a case similar to one rejected earlier in order to resolve a circuit split (differences in the way the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts interpret certain laws or constitutional issues).

Other reasons may apply.

Answer 5

They wouldn't. However, mistakes happen. The state courts mistake would be caught by the appellate court and sent back with a reminder or explanation of the Supreme Court's ruling. If a state is blatantly refusing to accept the Supreme courts ruling, they're in for a rude awakening before the US Congress and will be apart of a very nasty constitutional battle with the United States.

Answer 6

What happens if the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case on appeal from the lower courts?

A.

The lower court’s ruling stands and cannot be repealed.

B.

The case sits in the Court’s docket for the next six months.

C.

The case immediately goes back to district courts for a re-trial.

D.

The case immediately goes back to the appellate courts for a re-trial.

Please select the best answer from the choices provided

A

B

C

D

Mark this and return