Menus Subscribe Search

Follow us


The Law Won

supreme-court-courtroom

The Supreme Court courtroom. (Photo: John Marino/Flickr)

How the Supremes Pick Their Cases—and Why Obamacare Is Safe for Now

• July 24, 2014 • 10:58 AM

The Supreme Court courtroom. (Photo: John Marino/Flickr)

The opponents of Obamacare who went one for two in circuit court rulings earlier this week are unlikely to see their cases reach the Supreme Court.

Although I couldn’t tell you whether I learned it for cocktail parties or lectures, one of the first topics I seized on upon entering law school was, in the lingo of Schoolhouse Rock!, how a lawsuit becomes a Supreme Court case.

Getting four Justices to vote to hear a case had to be a more legible, more routinized process than pundits and politicos made it seem, I thought. Surely experts had answers. If you just pegged the right legal and political variables, or spoke to enough constitutional law scholars and former Supreme Court clerks, you’d be able to make fairly accurate predictions. But the answer at which I arrived following careful study, like most answers in law school, was, “It depends.”

MOST SUPREME COURT CASES come up through the lower courts. Whichever party loses in a state supreme court or federal court of appeals can petition for certiorari, or consideration from the Supreme Court. (“Certiorari,” by the way, is the present passive infinitive of “certioro, certiorare” meaning “to inform, apprise, show,” according to Wikipedia.) Occasionally, parties to a case in the court of appeals petition the Supreme Court to hear their case even before the appeals court rules, skipping a step—as was the case last year with gay rights activist Edie Windsor, whose case toppled the Defense of Marriage Act. She pleaded with the Court to take her case early because of her age and health. If she’d died before the Court ruled, her case would have died along with her.

Although the Supreme Court isn’t above hearing cases surrounding legislative semantics, it must be less inclined to do so when there’s no conflict among circuit courts.

In rare cases, the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction—making 1 1st Street NE the first and only stop. That happens when two or more states are suing one another—there’s one of those coming up next term, among Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado over the Republican River—or where a case involves ambassadors or public ministers.

But how do the Justices choose which of the many petitions they receive each year to grant? In 1880, the Court received just 417 petitions, although it had 1,212 cases on its docket. Not until 1933 did the total number of petitions break 1,000. (The number hit 5,000 in 1989.) Now, the Court receives 10,000 petitions per year.

Even as the number of petitions for certiorari the Justices receive continues to grow, they’ve become ever more selective about hearing oral arguments. That number peaked at 184 per year, in 1981 and 1983. Today, the Supreme Court hears just 75 to 80 cases each term, although it reviews and decides many cases in writing, without hearing arguments; usually that number hovers in the low triple digits. The highest number of cases decided without argument in recent history is 826, in 2004.

The “Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States” emphasize that the Court has complete judicial discretion; it can choose to hear any petitions from federal appeals courts and state supreme courts that involve issues of federal law or the Constitution. But within that discretion some reasons to hear a case are officially more compelling than others.

Most prominent among these reasons listed in Rule 10 is conflict among circuit courts (a circuit split), or between a federal appeals court and a state supreme court—when “a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter” or “has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with” a state supreme court. The Supremes may also take cases from state supreme courts that attempt to make a pronouncement on a federal law or constitutional issue, rule on something the Supreme Court has yet to settle, or disregard Court precedent.

The Justices may also grant certiorari, of course, if the issue in question is of particular national importance—or if a court “has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power.” It rarely happens, though, that an appeals court goes rogue without also contradicting other courts of appeal.

THE TWO TUESDAY OBAMACARE cases from circuit courts aren’t likely to make the cut at the Court. While the opponents of Obamacare who lost in the Fourth Circuit case plan to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit losers—the pro-ACA contingent—announced their intent to petition for an en banc re-hearing just hours after the ruling was released. Nina Totenberg, among others, suggests consensus is that an en banc re-hearing is likely.

If a re-hearing is granted in the D.C. Circuit, the adverse ruling will be vacated immediately, eliminating the circuit split—and thus the best reason for the Supreme Court to take the case in the near future. Moreover, it’s most likely that an en banc review will see the D.C. Circuit fall in line with the Fourth Circuit. Of the 13 eligible judges—11 active judges plus the two senior status judges who were part of the original three-judge panel—eight were appointed by Democrats.

That would leave anti-Obamacare agitators with only the relative importance of the legal question they’ve raised as a basis for arguing that the Supreme Court should take the case. But the question here is a trifling one, albeit with potentially enormous consequences for millions of Americans across 36 states, those that have federally run state-level health exchanges because they refused to set up their own health insurance marketplaces.

Conservatives argue that because a sub-section of the statute providing for premium subsidies neglects to mention these exchanges, only individuals participating in state-run state-level exchanges should be eligible to receive subsidies. And if they were to prevail, it would be the end of Obamacare—individual premiums would be four times as much as they are now. Those behind and in favor of the ACA point out that it’s clear from the remainder of the statute that Congress didn’t intend to distinguish between state-run and federally run exchanges.

Although the Supreme Court isn’t above hearing cases surrounding legislative semantics, it must be less inclined to do so when there’s no conflict among circuit courts—and where the faction who’d favor reversing the decision below isn’t assured of the votes to do so.

Justice John Roberts voted against the conservative bloc in the 2012 Obamacare case, to uphold the legislation. If he doesn’t vote in favor of granting certiorari in these cases, the conservative faction may take that as a signal he’d vote to uphold Obamacare again and follow his lead. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—perhaps joined by Anthony Kennedy—would hardly invite a second major Obamacare battle to the Supreme Court knowing that they’d likely come up one vote shy of gutting Obamacare once again.

Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza
Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza attended Harvard College and Yale Law School. She has written on law and politics for the Nation, the Atlantic, Politico, the Daily Beast, and CNN, and co-authored James Carville’s 40 More Years. Follow her on Twitter @rpbp.

More From Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza

A weekly roundup of the best of Pacific Standard and PSmag.com, delivered straight to your inbox.

Recent Posts

October 24 • 4:00 PM

We Need to Normalize Drug Use in Our Society

After the disastrous misconceptions of the 20th century, we’re returning to the idea that drugs are an ordinary part of life experience and no more cause addiction than do other behaviors. This is rational and welcome.


October 24 • 2:00 PM

A Letter to the Next Attorney General: Fix Presidential Pardons

More than two years ago, a series showed that white applicants were far more likely to receive clemency than comparable applicants who were black. Since then, the government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a study, but the pardons system remains unchanged.


October 24 • 12:00 PM

What Makes You So Smart, Middle School Math Teacher?

Noah Davis talks to Vern Williams about what makes middle school—yes, middle school—so great.


October 24 • 10:00 AM

Why DNA Is One of Humanity’s Greatest Inventions

How we’ve co-opted our genetic material to change our world.


October 24 • 8:00 AM

What Do Clowns Think of Clowns?

Three major players weigh in on the current state of the clown.


October 24 • 7:13 AM

There Is No Surge in Illegal Immigration

The overall rate of illegal immigration has actually decreased significantly in the last 10 years. The time is ripe for immigration reform.


October 24 • 6:15 AM

Politicians Really Aren’t Better Decision Makers

Politicians took part in a classic choice experiment but failed to do better than the rest of us.


October 24 • 5:00 AM

Why We Gossip: It’s Really All About Ourselves

New research from the Netherlands finds stories we hear about others help us determine how we’re doing.


October 24 • 2:00 AM

Congratulations, Your City Is Dying!

Don’t take population numbers at face value.


October 23 • 4:00 PM

Of Course Marijuana Addiction Exists

The polarized legalization debate leads to exaggerated claims and denials about pot’s potential harms. The truth lies somewhere in between.


October 23 • 2:00 PM

American Companies Are Getting Way Too Cozy With the National Security Agency

Newly released documents describe “contractual relationships” between the NSA and U.S. companies, as well as undercover operatives.


October 23 • 12:00 PM

The Man Who’s Quantifying New York City

Noah Davis talks to the proprietor of I Quant NY. His methodology: a little something called “addition.”


October 23 • 11:02 AM

Earliest High-Altitude Settlements Found in Peru

Discovery suggests humans adapted to high altitude faster than previously thought.


October 23 • 10:00 AM

The Psychology of Bribery and Corruption

An FBI agent offered up confidential information about a political operative’s enemy in exchange for cash—and they both got caught. What were they thinking?


October 23 • 8:00 AM

Ebola News Gives Me a Guilty Thrill. Am I Crazy?

What it means to feel a little excited about the prospect of a horrific event.


October 23 • 7:04 AM

Why Don’t Men Read Romance Novels?

A lot of men just don’t read fiction, and if they do, structural misogyny drives them away from the genre.


October 23 • 6:00 AM

Why Do Americans Pray?

It depends on how you ask.


October 23 • 4:00 AM

Musicians Are Better Multitaskers

New research from Canada finds trained musicians more efficiently switch from one mental task to another.


October 22 • 4:00 PM

The Last Thing the Women’s Movement Needs Is a Heroic Male Takeover

Is the United Nations’ #HeForShe campaign helping feminism?


October 22 • 2:00 PM

Turning Public Education Into Private Profits

Baker Mitchell is a politically connected North Carolina businessman who celebrates the power of the free market. Every year, millions of public education dollars flow through Mitchell’s chain of four non-profit charter schools to for-profit companies he controls.


October 22 • 12:00 PM

Will the End of a Tax Loophole Kill Off Irish Business and Force Google and Apple to Pay Up?

U.S. technology giants have constructed international offices in Dublin in order to take advantage of favorable tax policies that are now changing. But Ireland might have enough other draws to keep them there even when costs climb.


October 22 • 10:00 AM

Veterans in the Ivory Tower

Why there aren’t enough veterans at America’s top schools—and what some people are trying to do to change that.


October 22 • 8:00 AM

Our Language Prejudices Don’t Make No Sense

We should embrace the fact that there’s no single recipe for English. Making fun of people for replacing “ask” with “aks,” or for frequently using double negatives just makes you look like the unsophisticated one.


October 22 • 7:04 AM

My Politicians Are Better Looking Than Yours

A new study finds we judge the cover by the book—or at least the party.


October 22 • 6:00 AM

How We Form Our Routines

Whether it’s a morning cup of coffee or a glass of warm milk before bed, we all have our habitual processions. The way they become engrained, though, varies from person to person.


Follow us


Politicians Really Aren’t Better Decision Makers

Politicians took part in a classic choice experiment but failed to do better than the rest of us.

Earliest High-Altitude Settlements Found in Peru

Discovery suggests humans adapted to high altitude faster than previously thought.

My Politicians Are Better Looking Than Yours

A new study finds we judge the cover by the book—or at least the party.

That Cigarette Would Make a Great Water Filter

Clean out the ashtray, add some aluminum oxide, and you've (almost) got yourself a low-cost way to remove arsenic from drinking water.

Love and Hate in Israel and Palestine

Psychologists find that parties to a conflict think they're motivated by love while their enemies are motivated by hate.

The Big One

One company, Amazon, controls 67 percent of the e-book market in the United States—down from 90 percent five years ago. September/October 2014 new-big-one-5

Copyright © 2014 by Pacific Standard and The Miller-McCune Center for Research, Media, and Public Policy. All Rights Reserved.