Also known as: certiorari · writ of certiorari · cert review
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A procedural mechanism by which the Supreme Court exercises discretionary appellate jurisdiction over final judgments from lower federal courts and the highest state courts. The writ issues upon petition when a case presents an important federal question. Review proceeds under statutory limits that preserve jurisdiction absent a clear adequate and independent state ground and permit Congress to channel or except particular categories of cases.
North Stadium appealed after a jury awarded Sophia her full contractual bonus. The court of appeals examined the entire record on certiorari review and concluded that admission of settlement evidence did not affect the team's substantial rights because the contract language and performance records independently supported the verdict. The Supreme Court denied the petition.
Chevron challenged a state rent-control statute as an uncompensated taking. After losing in the court of appeals, Chevron petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review to clarify the proper standard for regulatory takings claims.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Residents sued a town over zoning changes that allegedly reduced property values. The court of appeals dismissed for lack of standing. The residents sought certiorari, but the Supreme Court denied the petition because no injury in fact was shown.
A former presidential aide sued the President for damages arising from official acts. After the court of appeals rejected absolute immunity, the President petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review to decide the scope of presidential immunity.
A company operating a shopping center banned leafleting on its property. After the state supreme court found state action, the company petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review to determine whether the private conduct constituted state action.
Landlords challenged a statute requiring cable installation on their buildings without compensation. After losing below, they petitioned for certiorari. The Supreme Court granted review to decide whether the mandated installation constituted a per se physical taking.
The Court presumes jurisdiction when the state-court opinion mixes state and federal grounds without clearly and expressly resting on an adequate and independent state-law ground. Ambiguity in the opinion triggers the presumption that federal law controls.
Supporting sources
Congress may reroute or withdraw specific statutory avenues of appellate review under Article III, provided it does not eliminate all federal judicial review of constitutional claims. The Exceptions and Regulations Clause permits such changes even while a petition is pending.
Supporting sources
The Supreme Court treats the judgment as resting on federal law and exercises jurisdiction unless the state court clearly states that its decision rests on independent state grounds. Mixed reliance without a clear statement does not defeat review.
Supporting sources
Yes. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2111 the reviewing court examines the record and disregards errors that do not affect substantial rights of the parties. An error is harmless when independent evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdict.
Supporting sources
…for the Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that the statute was beyond Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause. We granted certiorari, 511 U. S. 1029 (1994), and now affirm. I We start with first principles. The Constitution creates a Federal Government of enumerated powers. See M’Culloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat.…