During the hearing, each party has about 30 minutes to present their case, but lawyers are not required to use all the time. The applicant pleads first, then the defendant. If the petitioner sets aside time for rebuttal, he speaks last. Once the Court has taken its seat, the Chief Justice recognizes the applicant`s lawyer, who is already on the podium. The lawyer then begins: “Mr. Chief Justice, and the court pleases him.” In all cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, as well as in cases where a State must be a contracting party, the Supreme Court is initially competent. In all other above-mentioned cases, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to appeal, both in law and in terms of facts, with such exceptions and under regulations adopted by Congress. In its 1794 decision in Chisholm v. In Georgia, the Supreme Court sparked controversy when it ruled that Article III granted it initial jurisdiction over proceedings brought by a citizen of another State against a State. The decision further ruled that this court was “self-executive,” meaning that Congress had no control over when the Supreme Court was allowed to enforce it. In this case, the court had to decide whether a law of Congress or the Constitution was the supreme law of the land.
The Judicial Act of 1789 gave the Supreme Court initial jurisdiction to issue mandamus orders (orders that require government officials to act in accordance with the law). A lawsuit was filed under this Act, but the Supreme Court concluded that the Constitution did not allow the court to have jurisdiction in the case at first instance. Since Article VI of the Constitution establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, the Court ruled that a law of Congress that violates the Constitution cannot exist. In subsequent cases, the Court also noted its power to repeal the laws of states that violate the Constitution. Although it is the prerogative of each judge to read each petition in certiorari himself, many participate in what is informally called the “certificate pool”. Since petitions are received weekly for the certiorari, they are distributed among the participating judges. Participating judges divide their applications among their trainees. Trainee lawyers, in turn, read the petitions assigned to them, draft a short memorandum on the case and make a recommendation as to whether the case should be accepted or not.
The judge shall make these notes and recommendations available to the other judges at a judges` conference. Then the Supreme Court decides to accept the Special Master`s report as is or to hear arguments about disagreements with him. Finally, the Supreme Court determines the outcome of the case through a traditional vote accompanied by written statements of consent and dissent. Until 1861, after reviewing precedents, Chief Justice Taney could confidently proclaim that in all cases where initial jurisdiction is given by the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the power “to exercise it without further law of Congress to regulate its powers or transfer its jurisdiction, and that the Court may regulate and shape the process it uses in this manner, that, in his opinion, he best promotes the aims of justice.” 1206 The dispute concerns the waters of the Republican River, which affects parts of Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska. In 1943, Congress approved an agreement between the three states that allocates water from the river. In 1999, Kansas filed an initial lawsuit against Nebraska, complaining that the state had exceeded its allocation of water through groundwater pumps, thereby increasing its share. The special chief petty officer was retired Maine Supreme Court Chief Justice Vincent McKusick, who had handled several other original cases before him. After the hearings, gathering evidence, and receiving oral arguments, McKusick published a 200-page final report in 2003, joining a 1,081-page settlement agreement in five volumes. The court accepted his report and ordered the parties to pay his fees. The original jurisdiction of the court is defined by law in 28 U.S.C.
§ 1251. Article 1251(a) provides that in the case of any type of dispute (disputes between States), the jurisdiction of the court is not only “original” but exclusive. In other words, if the parties cannot resolve the matter, no court other than the Supreme Court has the power under the Constitution to assume its jurisdiction. Once the certiorari applications have been processed, the judges begin to discuss the cases that have been heard since their last conference. According to the Minutes of the Supreme Court, all judges have the opportunity to express their views on the case and to express any questions or concerns they may have. Each judge talks about the others without interruption. The Chief Justice makes the first statement, then each judge speaks in descending order of seniority and ends with the youngest judge – the one who has served on the court in recent years. If the judges decide to accept a case (grant a request for certiorari), the case is placed on the list. According to the rules of the Supreme Court, the applicant has a certain period of time to draw up a written statement of not more than 50 pages, in which he sets out his legal case with regard to the matter on which the court has granted a review. Once the applicant`s pleadings have been filed, the other party known as the respondent has a certain period of time to file a defendant`s pleadings.
This letter must also not exceed 50 pages. 1219 Wyoming vs. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 451 (1982). The principles are the same whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is exclusive or simultaneous. Texas vs. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983); California vs.
West Virginia, 454 U.S. 1027 (1981); Arizona vs. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976). Relatively few cases of initial jurisdiction are brought before the Court of Justice. Lately, there have been one or two a year. The court`s practice in these cases is to appoint a “master” to listen to the evidence, establish the facts, and recommend a decision. This allows the court to treat the dispute in the same way as those who take it up on appeal, as it allows the court to consider Master`s findings and recommendations in light of the legal arguments of the opposing parties. Realistic court simulations focus on Bill of Rights cases with scenarios relevant to youth. On one occasion, United States v. Shipp, a criminal complaint was filed directly with the court after the lynching of a defendant, whose appeal had been allowed in court.
The trial of those responsible for the lynching gave the court, for the first and so far the only time in its history, initial jurisdiction over criminal proceedings. [11] However, another clause in section 13 of the Judicial Act, 1789 did not enjoy the same presumption by Marshall C.J., who interpreted it as giving the Court the power to issue a writ of mandamus on an original proceeding, stating that since Congress could not limit initial jurisdiction, nor could he extend it, and he struck down section.1213 Although the Supreme Court`s interpretation of the meaning of the section could be called into question, no one questioned the constitutional principle it proclaimed. Although the rule deprives Congress of the power to extend or reduce jurisdiction, it leaves the Court itself considerable room for interpretation. In some cases, such as Missouri v. Holland,1214 The Court has shown a tendency toward a liberal interpretation of its original jurisdiction, but the most widespread view is that “our original jurisdiction should be invoked sparingly.” 1215 Initial jurisdiction “is limited and must obviously be exercised sparingly and should not be extended by construction”. 1216 The exercise of its initial jurisdiction does not lie with the Court, but with a margin of appreciation to be determined on a case-by-case basis for reasons of practical necessity.1217 It must be noted “only in appropriate cases”. And the question of what is appropriate, of course, concerns the gravity and dignity of the claim; in addition, however, it is necessarily the availability of another forum in which the designated parties are competent, in which the proposed issues can be negotiated and, if necessary, remedies can be found. We tend to use our original skill sparingly so that our growing obligations with the appeal protocol do not suffer. 1218 But if there are allegations of sufficient “seriousness and dignity” for which the judicial decision is essential, the Court will hear them.1219 Most law students first encounter the concept of original jurisdiction in their constitutional law courses when they study Marbury v.