0
How does the US Supreme Court indicate that the justices have agreed to review a lower court decision?
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
The US Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari, or an order to the court from which the case is being appealed, to send the case records to the Supreme Court.
In reality, the Supreme Court no longer issues a formal writ after granting certiorari; requesting files is now an administrative procedure handled by the Clerk of Court as a matter of routine.
Wiki User
∙ 12y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the decision of most of the justices on the Supreme Court called?
The agreed ruling of more than half of the Supreme Court justices is called a majority decision.
What is a written statement by most of the justices in support of a Supreme Court decision?
The agreed ruling of more than half of the Supreme Court justices is called a majority decision; the written document is called a majority opinion or the "opinion of the Court."
How many votes are needed to accept a case in the US Supreme Court?
It requires the vote of at least four of the nine US Supreme Court justices to grant a petition for writ of certiorari. If four Justices agree, the Supreme Court will accept the case. This is referred to as the "Rule of Four."
Who wrote the Supreme Court opinion for Brown v. Board of Education?
The Supreme Court opinion for Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was written by Chief Justice Earl Warren. The decision was unanimous, which means all nine justices agreed with the opinion.
What is the definition of a majority opinion in the US Supreme Court?
A majority opinion is the agreed decision of more than half the justices who heard the case. Under most circumstances, a simple majority would be five of nine justices (5/9); however, there have been many times when only eight sat on a case (5/8), and it's legally possible for as few as six justices to consider a case (2/3).
How do you use the word supreme in a sentence?
That was a supreme Sunday you made me! Used like "Super!" Or "Supurb!"
What does a Writ of Certiorari from the US Supreme Court indicate?
When the US Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari (an order to the lower court to send up records), it indicates they have agreed to review the case under their appellate jurisdiction.
Why would the US Supreme Court reverse a decision?
If your question is why the US Supreme Court would reverse one of its own decisions, there can be a number of reasons for doing so.Recent DecisionIf the decision is recent, and the losing party has 25 days to file a petition with the US Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. Most petitions for rehearing are denied, but if the Court grants the petition, the case will be docketed for reargument.The most common reason for granting a rehearing appears to be instances where the lower court decision was affirmed by an equally divided court (tie vote) due to the absence of one of the nine Supreme Court justices. If the Court believes the issue raised is of sufficient importance, they may grant a rehearing, vacate their first default decision, and reconsider the case with all justices present. Under most circumstances, the Court has reaffirmed the decision, allowing the case to set precedent.Sometimes decisions are reversed due to new evidence being presented, changes to federal laws, or a convincing argument made against the first decision.A search of the Justia Supreme Court database indicates the last time the Supreme Court agreed to reconsider a case under its appellate jurisdiction was 1969; the most recent case reconsidered under original jurisdiction was in 2000.Decision of an Earlier CourtThe US Supreme Court has overturned many of its own precedents over the years, usually involving decisions made by an earlier Court. Reasons are varied but commonly include differences in constitutional interpretation, changes in federal laws, or changes in social conditions since the earlier decision was made.One classic example is the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954) holding racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause, which overturned the 60-year old decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896), holding segregation was constitutional, as long as equal accommodations or facilities were provided.In Brown, the Warren Court corrected a politically motivated decision made other Supreme Court justices in the 19th century.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How many judges ruled in favor of Dred Scott?
At least four. The District Court judge believed Dred and Harriet should be free under the "once free, always free" doctrine because they had both resided in territories that prohibited slavery. Dred Scott lived in Illinois, a free state governed by the Northwest Ordinance, and he and his wife lived together in the Wisconsin Territories, an unincorporated area controlled by Congress, that also prohibited slavery.One of the three judges in the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court judge, but the other two upheld Irene Emerson's claim to ownership.Two of the nine US Supreme Court justices, Justices John McLean and Benjamin Curtis, also believed Scott and his family should be free.
What if the president could fire justices of the supreme court if he didnt like a ruling the made?
This would essentially put the supreme court under the president and let him decide the constitutionality of laws if Congress agreed with him. However if the opposition controlled Congress, the president might fire the whole court and Congress might refuse to confirm his new appointments and chaos would result.
What if president could fire justices of the supreme court if he didnt like a ruling they made?
This would essentially put the supreme court under the president and let him decide the constitutionality of laws if Congress agreed with him. However if the opposition controlled Congress, the president might fire the whole court and Congress might refuse to confirm his new appointments and chaos would result.
Why did Chief Justice Warren make an anonymous decision in the case Brown v Board of Education?
Chief Justice Warren didn't make an anonymous (meaning without revealing names) decision, the Supreme Court reached a unanimous decision (meaning they all agreed) in Brown v. Board of Education, (1954).The justices wanted to take a strong, united stance against segregation by issuing a single opinion signed by everyone. This sent a clear message to those who resisted desegregation that "separate but equal" was "inherently unequal" and would no longer be sanctioned by the Supreme Court.The decision also opened the door to challenges of Jim Crow laws, and other discriminatory practices, with the expectation the Court would dismantle the institution of racism (or at least try).Case Citation:Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)
