Understanding the Appeals Process
The U.S. court system can puzzle many who don’t understand the many moving parts and various stages of the process.
By Roan Fair
EiC’s Note: This article is the first in our new SCOTUS Update miniseries. Roan Fair aims to unpack some of the important decisions from the Supreme Court’s 24-25 term and the effects on culture and future policy.
This past summer, the U.S. Supreme Court heard cases featuring a wide array of hot-button issues, including birthright citizenship, pornography bans, transgender medical care, and the defunding of universities, to name a few. While each case presents its own complex set of facts and implications, many who see these developments on the banner headlines on CNN and Fox News have little knowledge of what it takes for such a case to reach the marble halls of the highest court in the nation.
Before this series delves into the complexities of the Court’s summer rulings, it is important to establish the basic criteria of the appeals process and the proper role of the Supreme Court as the final arbiter.
Federal District Courts
Many of the major cases this term stemmed from disputes regarding statutes passed by state governments, agency regulations or executive orders enacted by President Trump. Opponents to laws, must begin the process by challenging the constitutionality of the legislation in the U.S. District Courts. Across the 94 District Courts, judges seek to discern the facts of the matter and resolve the case according to the relevant laws.
In constitutional challenges, the judges on the District Court must determine if the law in question violates rights or privileges guaranteed by the Constitution or conflicts with previously enacted and binding legislation. If the District Court judge finds the challenged law in conflict with the Constitution, the judge is able to fully or partially enjoin (restrict or prohibit) the legislation from taking effect.
US Court of Appeals
After the District Courts provide a legal resolution to the case, either party may challenge and appeal the ruling in one of the 13 appellate courts. The Court of Appeals serves as the final judgment for the majority of cases and can create binding precedents for lower courts. Appellate cases are often argued before a panel of three judges who examine whether the lower court accurately interpreted the law and if the proceedings were properly conducted. It is important to note that no new evidence may be included at this stage of the process, and the focus is purely on the procedure and interpretation.
Attorneys present many cases to the panel of judges via oral arguments. Each side receives 15 minutes to address the issues in the case and argue for the proper interpretation of the law. During this time, judges are able to question the attorneys about finer points of the law and specific issues regarding the case.
The Supreme Court of the United States
While the Court of Appeals handles close to 50,000 cases each year, the U.S. Supreme Court hears only about 100 cases out of the nearly 8,000 cases that request review. Those seeking appeal at the High Court must petition for review through “writs of certiorari” which detail the facts of appeal and present legal arguments for the constitutional issue in question.
The 9 Justices and their clerks of the Supreme Court review these writs and determine which cases will be reviewed. The Court rarely hears cases that do not center on important constitutional issues or questions of uniform judicial interpretation.
Once the Supreme Court accepts a case, it begins the process of oral arguments and judicial review anew. At this level, the Justices review the Court of Appeals’ ruling and, through the majority opinion, establish the proper and binding interpretation of the issue or legal action. Justices who do not agree with the Court’s majority pen dissenting opinions that criticize the majority’s reasoning and often describe a separate interpretation.
Although the Court does establish binding precedents for all U.S. courts, these precedents are not infallible. The ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization demonstrated the Court’s ability to alter and reverse a decades long precedent.
Understanding the Ivory Tower
The U.S. court system with its complex rules and procedures can puzzle many who do not understand the many moving parts and various stages of the process. Although some may be frustrated that the courts take years to arbitrate and resolve issues, the slow pace of the court system is designed to promote fairness and maintain accurate resolutions.
In 2011, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia famously urged Americans to “learn to love gridlock.” The multilayered appeals process demonstrates that, although the process may take time, it is aims to meticulously ensure rulings were decided fairly and that complex laws are interpreted and applied accurately.
About the Author
Roan Fair is a History and Political Science double major at Grove City College. On campus, he is the Senior Articles Editor for the Grove City College Journal of Law and Public Policy. He also serves as a student executive for the BEST Robotics Competition, a high school program hosted by the college and is the Vice President for the college’s Federalist Society chapter. Additionally, Roan serves as a TA for Dr. Verbois in the political science department. His interests include early American history, political theory, and the legal field. Finally, after graduation, Roan plans on attending law school and pursuing a career in private practice.
READ MORE BY ROAN FAIR: The Second 100 Days
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the writer alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Grove City College, the Institute for Faith and Freedom, or their affiliates.
Cover Image: Photo Photo by Jimmy Woo on Unsplash (Cropped)