In the United States, the state supreme court (also known by other names in various states) is the highest state court in the state court system (i.e., that state's court of last resort).
Generally, the state supreme court, like most appellate tribunals, is exclusively for hearing appeals of legal issues. It does not make any finding of facts, and thus holds no trials. In the rare case where the trial court made an egregious error in its finding of facts, the state supreme court will remand to the trial court for a new trial. This responsibility of correcting the errors of inferior courts is the origin of a number of the different names for supreme courts in various states' court systems.
The court consists of a panel of judges selected by methods outlined in the state constitution. State supreme courts are completely distinct from any United States federal courts located within the geographical boundaries of a state's territory, or the federal United States Supreme Court (although appeals, on some issues, from judgments of a state's highest court can be sought in the U.S. Supreme Court).
Under American federalism, the interpretation of a state supreme court on a matter of state law is normally final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts.
Federal courts may only overrule a state court when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Rulings of state supreme courts on such matters may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
One of the informal traditions of the American legal system, derived from the common law, is that all litigants are guaranteed at least one appeal after a final judgment on the merits. However, appeal is merely a privilege provided by statute in 47 states and in federal judicial proceedings; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an appeal.[1]
Since a few states lack intermediate appellate courts, the state supreme court may operate under "mandatory review", in which it must hear all appeals from the trial courts. This is the case, for example, in Nevada. Such judicial systems are usually very congested.[2]
Most state supreme courts have implemented "discretionary review," like their federal counterpart. Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. For certain limited categories of cases, the state supreme court still operates under mandatory review, usually with regard to cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution or capital punishment. But for the vast majority, the state supreme court possesses the discretion to grant certiorari (known as review in states that discourage the use of Latin). These cases usually pertain to issues which different appellate courts within its jurisdiction have decided differently, or highly controversial cases involving a completely new legal issue never seen in that state.
Iowa has a unique procedure for appeals. In that state, all appeals are filed with the Supreme Court, which then keeps all cases of first impression for itself to decide. It forwards the remaining cases – which deal with points of law it has already addressed – to the intermediate Court of Appeals.
Notably, the state supreme courts of New Hampshire, Virginia, and West Virginia operate under discretionary review for nearly all cases. The highest courts of New Hampshire and West Virginia simply do not have an intermediate appellate court between themselves and the trial court of general jurisdiction, while the intermediate Court of Appeals of Virginia hears appeals as a matter of right only in family and administrative cases. The result is that there is no first appeal of right for the vast majority of civil and criminal cases in those three states.
Appellants are still free to petition for review, of course. But such petitions tend to be subject to severe length constraints, and are necessarily much more narrowly targeted (usually to one or two particularly prejudicial errors) than a long opening appellate brief to an intermediate appellate court (which may touch upon several alleged errors by the trial court). In turn, the vast majority of decisions of trial courts in those three states are thereby insulated from appellate review on the merits.
Traditionally, state supreme courts are headquartered in the capital cities of their respective states, though they may occasionally hold oral argument elsewhere. The six main exceptions are:
As for the court's actual facilities, a state supreme court may be housed in the state capitol, in a nearby state office building shared with other courts or state executive branch agencies, or in a small courthouse reserved for its exclusive use. State supreme courts normally require a courtroom for oral argument, private chambers for all justices, a conference room, offices for law clerks and other support staff, a law library, and a lobby with a window where the court clerk can accept filings and release new decisions in the form of "slip opinions" (that is, in looseleaf format held together only by a staple).
Because state supreme courts generally hear only appeals, some courts have names which directly indicate their function – in the states of New York and Maryland, and in the District of Columbia, the highest court is called the "Court of Appeals". In New York, the "Supreme Court" is the trial court of general unlimited jurisdiction and the intermediate appellate court is called the "Supreme Court—Appellate Division". Maryland's jury trial courts are called "Circuit Courts" (non-jury trials are usually conducted by the "District Courts," whose decisions may be appealed to the Circuit Courts), and the intermediate appellate court is called the "Court of Special Appeals". West Virginia mixes the two; its highest court is called the "Supreme Court of Appeals".
Other states' supreme courts have used the term "Appeals": New Jersey's supreme courts under the 1844 constitution and Delaware's supreme court were both the "Court of Errors and Appeals"; The term "Errors" refers to the now-obsolete writ of error, which was used by state supreme courts to correct certain types of egregious errors committed by lower courts.
Massachusetts and New Hampshire originally named their highest courts the "Superior Court of Judicature." Currently, Massachusetts uses the names "Supreme Judicial Court" (to distinguish itself from the state legislature, which is called the Massachusetts General Court), while New Hampshire uses the name "Supreme Court". Additionally the highest court in Maine is named the "Supreme Judicial Court". This similar terminology is probably a holdover from the time when Maine was part of Massachusetts. In Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York, the highest courts formerly used variations of the term "Court of Errors," which indicated that the court's primary purpose was to correct the errors of lower courts.
Oklahoma and Texas have two separate supreme courts: one for criminal appeals and one for civil cases - the former being called Court of Criminal Appeals, and the latter the Supreme Court.
There are five specific methods of selecting judges to sit on the states' top courts, which can be consolidated into two related ones and one hybrid: Elections (popularly, with party involvement; the same without political party involvement; by the state legislature); selection by the state's chief executive (the governor); or a modified version of the last (such as the Missouri Plan). Each method has its supporters and detractors, and at least one method (The Missouri Plan) was created specifically because of the contentiousness of another.
The Federal territories of Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico all empower the executive to appoint their judges. In the case of American Samoa, however, the executive is the United States Secretary of the Interior, not the local governor.[3]
A non partisan election does not mean that the judges run and are selected with no regard to political beliefs. In many cases "non-partisan election" merely means the prospective judges' parties are not printed on the ballot.
(similar to the U.S. Senate's "advice and consent" powers in the Federal system)
|
|||||||||||||||||