State supreme court
In the United States, a state supreme court (known by other names in some states) is the highest court in the state judiciary of a U.S. state. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts.
This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2013)
Generally, a state supreme court, like most appellate tribunals, is exclusively for hearing appeals of legal issues. Although state supreme court rulings on matters of state law are final, rulings on matters of federal law can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. Each state supreme court consists of a panel of judges selected by methods outlined in the state constitution. Among the most common methods for selection are gubernatorial appointment, non-partisan election, and partisan election, but the different states follow a variety of procedures.
Role and powers
Under the system of federalism established by the United States Constitution, federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and state courts handle many more cases than do federal courts. Each of the fifty states has at least one supreme court that serves as the highest court in the state; two states, Texas and Oklahoma, have separate supreme courts for civil and criminal matters. The five permanently inhabited U.S. territories, as well Washington, D.C., each have comparable supreme courts. On matters of state law, the judgment of a state supreme court is considered final and binding in both state and federal courts. 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-level Supreme Court.
The exact duties and powers of the state supreme courts are established by state constitutions and state law. Generally, state supreme courts, like most appellate tribunals, are exclusively for hearing appeals on decisions issued by lower courts, and do not make any finding of facts or hold trials. They can, however, overrule the decisions of lower courts, remand cases to lower courts for further proceedings, and establish binding precedent for future cases. Some state supreme courts do have original jurisdiction over specific issues; for example, the Supreme Court of Virginia has original jurisdiction over cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, and writs of actual innocence based on DNA or other biological evidence.
Jurisdiction and appellate procedure
As the highest court in the state, a state supreme court has appellate jurisdiction over all matters of state law. Many states have two or more levels of courts below the state supreme court; for example, in Pennsylvania, a case might first be heard in one of the Pennsylvania courts of common pleas, be appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and then finally be appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. In other states, including Delaware, the state supreme court is the only appellate court in the state and thus has direct appellate jurisdiction over all lower courts.
Like the U.S. Supreme Court, most state supreme courts have implemented "discretionary review." Under such a system, intermediate appellate courts are entrusted with deciding the vast majority of appeals. Intermediate appellate courts generally focus on the mundane task of what appellate specialists call "error correction," which means their primary task is to decide whether the record reflects that the trial court correctly applied existing law. In a few states without intermediate appellate courts, the state supreme court may operate under "mandatory review", in which it must hear all appeals from the trial courts. This was the case, for example, in Nevada prior to 2014. For certain categories of cases, many state supreme courts that otherwise have discretionary review operate under mandatory review, usually with regard to cases involving the interpretation of the state constitution or capital punishment.
One of the informal traditions of the American legal system is that all litigants are entitled to at least one appeal after a final judgment on the merits. However, appeal is merely a privilege provided by statute, court rules, or custom in 49 states and in federal judicial proceedings; the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that there is no federal constitutional right to an appeal.
States with unique appellate procedures
Iowa, Nevada, and Oklahoma have a unique procedure for appeals. In those states, all appeals are filed with the appropriate Supreme Court (Iowa and Nevada each have a single Supreme Court, while Oklahoma has separate civil and criminal Supreme Courts) 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. Under this so-called "push-down" or "deflection" model of appellate procedure, the state supreme court can immediately establish final statewide precedents on important issues of first impression as soon as they arise, rather than waiting several months or years for the intermediate appellate court to make a first attempt at resolving the issue (and leaving the law uncertain in the interim).
Notably, the Supreme Court of Virginia operates under discretionary review for nearly all cases, but 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 that state. Appellants are still free to petition for review, but such petitions are subject to severe length constraints (6,125 words or 35 pages in Virginia) and necessarily are more narrowly targeted than a long opening appellate brief to an intermediate appellate court (in contrast, an opening brief to a California intermediate appellate court can run up to 14,000 words). In turn, the vast majority of decisions of Virginia circuit courts in civil and criminal cases are thereby insulated from appellate review on the merits.
Relationship with federal courts and federal law
Under American federalism, a state supreme court's ruling on a matter of purely state law is final and binding and must be accepted in both state and federal courts. However, when a case involves federal statutory or constitutional law, review of state supreme court decisions may be sought by way of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only federal court that has jurisdiction over direct appeals from state court decisions, although other federal courts are sometimes allowed "collateral review" of state cases in specific situations, for example regarding individuals on death row.
As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), no part of the federal Constitution actually grants federal courts or the federal Congress the power to directly dictate the content of state law (as distinguished from creating altogether separate federal law that in a particular situation may override state law). Clause 1 of Section 2 of Article Three of the United States Constitution describes the scope of federal judicial power, but only extended it to "the Laws of the United States" and not the laws of the several or individual states. It is this silence on that latter issue that gave rise to the American distinction between state and federal common law not found in other English-speaking common law federations like Australia and Canada.
In theory, state supreme courts are bound by the precedent established by the U.S. Supreme Court as to all issues of federal law, but in practice, the Supreme Court reviews very few decisions from state courts. For example, in 2007 the Court reviewed 244 cases appealed from federal courts and only 22 from state courts. Despite the relatively small number of decisions reviewed, Professors Sara Benesh and Wendy Martinek found that state supreme courts follow precedent more closely than federal courts in the area of search and seizure and appear to follow precedent in confessions as well.
State supreme court judges are selected in a variety of ways, with the method of selection often depending on the circumstances in which the seat is filled. Under one common method, the Missouri Plan, the governor fills judicial vacancies by choosing from a list compiled by a non-partisan commission. These judges serve an interim term until they stand in a retention election, in which they win a full term if a majority of voters vote for retention. Many other states elect judges through non-partisan elections in which multiple candidates appear on the ballot without their partisan affiliation listed. Most of the remaining states base their judicial selection system on gubernatorial appointments or partisan elections, although several states use a mix of different methods. South Carolina and Virginia use a system of legislative appointment, while in Vermont, the governor makes the initial appointment of judges, but the legislature has the power to re-appoint judges to new terms.
Various other factors can influence the appointment and re-appointment of state supreme court judges. Most judicial selection systems involving gubernatorial appointment make use of a nominating commission to recommend a list of candidates from which the governor must choose, but a minority of states allow the governor to nominate candidates even if they were not recommended by the commission. Many of the states that use gubernatorial appointment require the appointment to be confirmed by the state legislature or some other body, such as the Massachusetts Governor's Council. Although most states limit judicial terms to a set number of years, judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire serve until they reach a mandatory retirement limit, while in Rhode Island, judges serve lifetime appointments. Most judges represent the entire state, but in Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Mississippi, judges represent districts of the state. Many states, including some states in which the governor is not otherwise involved in the appointment process, allow the governor to make interim appointments to fill judicial vacancies.
The various states provide different methods for the removal of state supreme court judges during their terms, with many states providing multiple methods. Two common methods of removal are impeachment by the state legislature, and removal by state judicial boards or commissions. Other states provide for the removal of judges through recall elections, court action, gubernatorial action (with legislative consent), or through a resolution passed by a super-majority in both houses of the state legislature.
- Alaska, whose supreme court is located in and usually sits in its largest city, Anchorage (monthly), but also sits in Fairbanks and Juneau (quarterly), and in other Alaskan communities on an as-needed basis.
- California, whose supreme court is headquartered in San Francisco and maintains only branch offices in the state capital, Sacramento, and the state's largest city, Los Angeles, and hears argument at all three locations each year.
- Louisiana, whose supreme court is headquartered in New Orleans' French Quarter.
- Maine, whose supreme court is headquartered in Portland.
- Pennsylvania, whose supreme court has facilities at three coequal locations of Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh.
- Tennessee, whose state constitution requires its supreme court to sit at three coequal locations of Nashville, Knoxville, and Jackson.
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": Pennsylvania's court of last resort from 1780-1808; New Jersey's supreme courts under the 1844 constitution; and Delaware's supreme court were all called 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." Since 1780, Massachusetts has used the name "Supreme Judicial Court" (to distinguish itself from the state legislature, which is called the Massachusetts General Court); 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 Pennsylvania, 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.
List of state and territorial supreme courts
|Name and state||Mode of selection||Term
|Retirement age||Number of
|Supreme Court of Alabama||Partisan election||6||70||9||9R–0D|
|Alaska Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||10||70||5||4R-1I|
|Arizona Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||6||70||7||7R-0D|
|Arkansas Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||8||–||7|
|Supreme Court of California||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the California Commission on Judicial Appointments||12||–||7||5D-1R-1I|
|Colorado Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||10||72||7||7D-0R|
|Connecticut Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||8||70||7||7D-0R|
|Delaware Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Delaware Senate||12||–||5||3D–2R|
|Supreme Court of Florida||Missouri Plan||6||75||7||7R|
|Supreme Court of Georgia||Non-partisan election||6||–||9||8R-1D|
|Supreme Court of Hawaii||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Hawaii State Senate||10||70||5||4D–1R|
|Idaho Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||6||–||5||5R-0D|
|Supreme Court of Illinois||Partisan election||10||75||7||4D–3R|
|Indiana Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||10||75||5||5R-0D|
|Iowa Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||8||72||7||6R-1D|
|Kansas Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||6||75||7||5D-2R|
|Kentucky Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||8||–||7|
|Louisiana Supreme Court||Partisan election||10||70||7||5R–1D-1I|
|Maine Supreme Judicial Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Maine Senate||7||–||7||6D–1R|
|Maryland Court of Appeals||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Maryland Senate||10||70||7||4R-3D|
|Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Massachusetts Governor's Council||Life||70||7||7R-0D|
|Michigan Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||8||70||7||4D-3R|
|Minnesota Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||6||70||7||5D-2R|
|Supreme Court of Mississippi||Non-partisan election||8||–||9||6R-3D|
|Supreme Court of Missouri||Missouri Plan||12||70||7||4R-3D|
|Montana Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||8||–||7|
|Nebraska Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||6||–||7||6R-1D|
|Supreme Court of Nevada||Non-partisan election||6||–||7|
|New Hampshire Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of New Hampshire||Life||70||7||3R-2D|
|New Jersey Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the New Jersey Senate||7, then until 70||70||7||3R-3D-1I|
|New Mexico Supreme Court||Appointment by governor||8||–||5||5D–0R|
|New York Court of Appeals||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the New York State Senate||14||70||7||6D-1R|
|North Carolina Supreme Court||Partisan election||8||72||7||4D–3R|
|North Dakota Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||10||–||5||4R-1D|
|Ohio Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||6||70||7||4R–3D|
|Supreme Court of Oklahoma|
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals
|Oregon Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||6||75||7||7D|
|Supreme Court of Pennsylvania||Partisan election||10||75||7||5D–2R|
|Rhode Island Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of both houses of the Rhode Island General Assembly||Life||–||5||3R–2D|
|South Carolina Supreme Court||Appointment by South Carolina General Assembly||10||72||5||5R|
|South Dakota Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||8||70||5||5R|
|Tennessee Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of both houses of the Tennessee General Assembly||8||–||5||3R–2D|
|Supreme Court of Texas|
Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
|Utah Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||10||75||5||5R|
|Vermont Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the advice and consent of the Vermont Senate||6||90||5||3R–2D|
|Supreme Court of Virginia||Appointment by Virginia Senate with the advice and consent of the Virginia House of Delegates||12||70||7|
|Washington Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||6||75||9||9D|
|Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia||Non-partisan election||12||–||5||3R-2D|
|Wisconsin Supreme Court||Non-partisan election||10||–||7||4R-3D|
|Wyoming Supreme Court||Missouri Plan||8||70||5||5R|
Territories and federal district
|Name and territory or federal district||Mode of selection||Term|
|High Court of American Samoa||Appointment by the United States Secretary of the Interior (Justices) & appointment by the Governor of American Samoa (Judges)||During good behavior||8 (2 + 6)|
|District of Columbia Court of Appeals||Appointment by the president of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate||15||9||74|
|Supreme Court of Guam||Appointment by governor with the confirmation of the Legislature of Guam||During good behavior, subject to a retention election every ten years after his or her appointment||3|
|Northern Mariana Islands Supreme Court||Appointment by governor with the confirmation of the Senate of the Northern Mariana Islands||8||3|
|Supreme Court of Puerto Rico||Appointment by governor with the confirmation of the Senate of Puerto Rico||Mandatory retirement at age 70||9|
|Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands||Appointment by governor with the confirmation of the Legislature of the Virgin Islands||Initial 10, with a term of good behavior upon reconfirmation||3|
Tribal supreme courts
- Supreme Court of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (formerly the Judicial Appeals Tribunal)
- Supreme Court of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (North Carolina)
- Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation (formerly the "Court of Appeals")
- United States court of appeals
- United States district court
- United States federal courts
- Supreme Court of the United States
- List of female state supreme court justices
- Massachusetts and New Hampshire have mandatory retirement ages, while Rhode Island has life tenure.
- In Hawaii, a judicial commission re-appoints judges, while in Vermont, the legislature re-appoints judges.
- Many, though not all, of the states in this category use the Missouri Plan. In New Mexico, judges are initially appointed by the governor, then face a partisan election; after that initial partisan election, judges win new terms through retention elections.
- Montana makes use of non-partisan retention elections at the end of a judge's term.
- Refers only to the initial method of appointing a judge at the start of a new term.
- Partisanship reflects the parties of the appointing governors, except in cases where a judge is registered with another party.
- "Federal vs. State Courts - Key Differences". FindLaw.
- "Comparing Federal & State Courts". United States Courts. Retrieved July 24, 2020.
- Walston-Dunham, Beth (2012). Introduction to Law (6th ed.). Clifton Park: Delmar. p. 35. ISBN 9781133707981. Retrieved November 26, 2020.
- Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia (1970)
- Tarr, G. Alan (2010). Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking (5th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. p. 39. ISBN 9780495567363. Retrieved May 24, 2020.
- Manweller, Mathew (2006). "Chapter 2, The Roles, Functions, and Powers of State Courts". In Hogan, Sean O. (ed.). The Judicial Branch of State Government: People, Process, and Politics. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. pp. 37–96. ISBN 9781851097517. Retrieved October 5, 2020.
- Valerie Miller, "Judges renew their call for appeals court," Las Vegas Business Press 19, no. 3 (January 21, 2002): 1.
- Tarr, G. Alan (2010). Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking (5th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth. p. 141. ISBN 9780495567363. Retrieved May 24, 2020.
- Oakley, John B.; Amar, Vikram D. (2009). American Civil Procedure: A Guide to Civil Adjudication in US Courts. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International. p. 28. ISBN 9789041128720.
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259, 270 n.5 (2000) ("[t]he Constitution does not . . . require states to create appellate review in the first place"); M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 110 (1996) ("the Federal Constitution guarantees no right to appellate review").
- 🖉"Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)". Justia Law.
- Sara C. Benesh and Wendy L. Martinek, "Context and Compliance: A Comparison of State Supreme Courts and the Circuits" 93 Marq. L. Rev. 795 (2009).
- 🖉Pojanowski, Jeffrey A. (February 25, 2013). "Statutes in Common Law Courts" – via papers.ssrn.com.
- Zachary B. Pohlman, Stare Decisis and the Supreme Court(s): What States Can Learn from Gamble, 95 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1731 (2020), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3525188
- "Judicial Selection: Significant Figures". Brennan Center. May 8, 2015.
- Big Business Taking over State Supreme Courts: How Campaign Contributions to Judges Tip the Scales Against Individuals. AmericanProgress.org.
- "Removal of Judges". National Center for State Courts. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
- Edwards, Linda L.; Edwards, J. Stanley (2002). Introduction to Paralegal Studies and the Law: A Practical Approach. Albany, NY: Delmar. p. 124. ISBN 9780766835894. Retrieved December 23, 2015.
- "Judicial Selection: An Interactive Map". Brennan Center. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
- "Methods of Judicial Selection". National Center for State Courts. Retrieved July 23, 2020.
- EBCI Tribal Court website