What happens to Supreme Court case selection when the Court is deprived of its most potent case-selection tool, the circuit split? The Supreme Court has identified two factors that guide its choice of which cases to hear: a split between the highest state courts or the federal courts of appeals on a matter of federal law, or an important federal law question necessitating Supreme Court review. Because Congress has vested exclusive jurisdiction over federal claims, patents, and veterans’ appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, it is virtually impossible for federal appellate courts to split on interpretation of those federal statutes. Absent circuit splits, and given the vague nature of whether a given issue poses “an important question of federal law,” how does the Supreme Court decide which Federal Circuit cases merit review? Part I of this Note describes the general criteria the Supreme Court uses in deciding which cases it should hear and the unique concerns presented by Federal Circuit cases. Part II describes the Court’s historical approach to reviewing the Federal Circuit and changes in recent years. Finally, Part III describes three factors that appear particularly important to the Court when considering which cases merit review, and which should provide those interested in the Federal Circuit’s or Supreme Court’s docket with helpful guidelines to determine which Federal Circuit cases will draw the Supreme Court’s interest.
News & Events
Justice Department Writes Response to Kozinski’s “Criminal Law 2.0”
Andrew D. Goldsmith, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and John F. Walsh, United States Attorney for the District of Colorado, have written a letter on behalf of the Department of Justice responding to Judge Alex Kozinski’s preface to the 44th edition of the Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, “Criminal Law 2.0.”
Judge Kozinski’s Preface to 44th ARCP, “Criminal Law 2.0,” Quoted in NY Times Article
Judge Alex Kozinski’s recently published preface to the 44th edition of the Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, “Criminal Law 2.0,” was quoted earlier this week in a New York Times article on prisoners’ rights.
GLJ Vol. 102 Article Cited by Sotomayor in Glossip v. Gross Dissent
Congratulations to Georgetown Law Journal author Deborah Denno (Arthur A. McGivney Professor, Fordham Law), whose Volume 102 article, “Lethal Injection Chaos Post-Baze,” was cited in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in Glossip v. Gross.
GLJ Vol. 101 Article Cited by SCOTUS in Alice Corp. Opinion
Congratulations to Georgetown Law Journal author Yesha Yadav (Associate Professor, Vanderbilt Law School), whose Volume 101 article, The Problematic Case of Clearinghouses in Complex Markets, was cited in the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank.
The Journal Congratulates the New Volume 104 Masthead
The Georgetown Law Journal is proud to announce the editorial staff for Volume 104. The Volume 104 Editors would like to thank the Volume 103 Editors for their hard work and guidance throughout the past year. The Volume 104 Staff will join the masthead in late summer following the Write-On. […]