In the event of such a tie, the court typically issues what’s known as a per curiam decision. The opinion in such a decision is issued under the court’s name, as opposed to consisting of a majority and a minority opinion. Justices, however, may attach dissenting opinions to the per curiam decision if they like—as happened in Bush v. Gore .
Without nine justices, there is the potential for a 4-4 tie. Supreme Court ties aren’t unprecedented; justices have recused themselves from the bench for various reasons throughout history.
Although he is confined to his house for the time being, Rehnquist can still participate in Supreme Court decisions. Justice John Paul Stevens, who is subbing as chief justice with Rehnquist gone, made this clear yesterday when he commented that his cancer-stricken colleague “reserves the right” to cast his vote in upcoming cases.
The traditional practice of the Supreme Court of the United States is that “no affirmative action can be had in a cause where the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the judgment to be rendered or order to be made.
When there is a tie vote, the decision of the lower Court stands. This can happen if, for some reason, any of the nine Justices is not participating in a case (e.g., a seat is vacant or a Justice has had to recuse).
It's All About Certiorari People or entities wishing to appeal the ruling of a lower court file a “petition for writ of certiorari” with the Supreme Court. If at least four justices vote to do so, the writ of certiorari will be granted and the Supreme Court will hear the case.
State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions. Their interpretation of federal law or the U.S. Constitution may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court may choose to hear or not to hear such cases.
Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position.
The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court.
Courts are bound by the decisions of courts that are higher in the hierarchy. So for example the Court of Appeal is bound by decisions of the Supreme Court.
Answer: No. It is a common misconception among pro se litigants that federal courts can revisit and perhaps overturn a decision of the state courts. Only if a federal issue was part of a state court decision can the federal court review a decision by the state court.
Without nine justices, there is the potential for a 4-4 tie. Supreme Court ties aren’t unprecedented; justices have recused themselves from the bench for various reasons throughout history. When it happens, the lower court ruling stands and no precedent is set.
The traditional practice of the Supreme Court of the United States is that “no affirmative action can be had in a cause where the judges are equally divided in opinion as to the judgment to be rendered or order to be made.
Although rare, 4-4 ties are hardly unheard-of—justices do recuse themselves from time to time. A split decision effectively upholds the ruling of the lower court (presumably a state supreme court). In the event of such a tie, the court typically issues what’s known as a per curiam decision. The opinion in such a decision is issued under ...
The opinion in such a decision is issued under the court’s name, as opposed to consisting of a majority and a minority opinion. Justices, however, may attach dissenting opinions to the per curiam decision if they like—as happened in Bush v. Gore.
That’s actually a bit unusual, since Supreme Court justices often abstain from the decision-making process when they’ve missed oral arguments. In March of 1972, for example, Rehnquist chose not to participate in the decision in Eisenstadt v.
Despite his plans to the contrary, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has yet to return to the Supreme Court after his tracheotomy last week. Instead, according to an official statement released yesterday, the 80-year-old Rehnquist will be working from home as he recuperates.