The special master – usually a court-hired lawyer – conducts what amounts to a trial by gathering evidence, testifying by affidavit, and making a decision. The special captain then submits a special report to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considers this master`s report to be an ordinary federal court of appeal, rather than conducting its own trial. Once the first petitions have been filed, the petitioner and the respondent may file briefs of shorter duration that respond to the position of the other party. If not directly involved in the matter, the U.S. government, represented by the Solicitor General, may file a brief on behalf of the government. With the permission of the court, groups that have no vested interest in the outcome of the case, but are still interested in it, may file a so-called amicus curiae (Latin for „friend of the court“), which contains their own arguments and recommendations for deciding the case. 1219 Wyoming vs. Oklahoma, 502 U.S. 437, 451 (1982).

The principles are the same whether the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is exclusive or simultaneous. Texas vs. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554 (1983); California vs. West Virginia, 454 U.S. 1027 (1981); Arizona vs. New Mexico, 425 U.S. 794 (1976). In home court cases that deal with controversial interpretations of U.S.

law or the U.S. Constitution, the court itself will typically hear the lawyers` traditional oral arguments about the case. However, in cases involving contentious facts or physical acts, as is often the case because they have not been tried by a court of first instance, the Supreme Court usually appoints a special master for the case. When the Supreme Court decided to exercise its initial jurisdictional powers, it generally chose to make ad hoc decisions on a case-by-case basis, rather than making a more comprehensive decision related to the original doctrine of jurisdiction. This decision-making allows for greater flexibility in decision-making, but does not shed light on how the Court will deal with future cases in which the original doctrine of jurisdiction is invoked. The Constitution stipulates that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction both in first instance and on appeal. Initial jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first and only court to hear a case. The Constitution limits cases under initial jurisdiction to those involving disputes between States or disputes between ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. The jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal means that the court has the power to review the decisions of the lower courts.

Most of the cases heard by the Supreme Court are appeals from subordinate courts. Before going to the conference, judges often discuss relevant cases with their articling students in order to get different perspectives on the case. At the end of these sessions, judges sometimes have a pretty good idea of how they will vote in the case; At other times, they are always non-binding. According to the Protocol of the Supreme Court, only judges are currently allowed in the conference room – no police, clerks, secretaries, etc. The Chief Justice called the session to order and, as a sign of the collegial nature of the institution, all the judges shook hands. The first task is usually to discuss the petitions of the week for the certiorari, i.e. to decide which cases should be accepted or rejected. Initial jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before it has been heard and decided by a lower court. In other words, it is the power of a court to hear and decide a case before an appeal is reviewed. When each judge has finished speaking, the Chief Justice votes for the first time, and then each judge does the same in descending order of seniority until the youngest judge votes for the last time. Once the votes have been counted, the Chief Justice or the most senior judge of the majority, if the Chief Justice disagrees, appoints a majority judge to write the court`s opinion.

The most senior dissenting judge may request a dissenting judge to draft the dissenting opinion. Relatively few cases of initial jurisdiction are brought before the Court of Justice. Lately, there have been one or two a year. The court`s practice in these cases is to appoint a „master“ to listen to the evidence, establish the facts, and recommend a decision. This allows the court to treat the dispute in the same way as those who take it up on appeal, as it allows the court to consider Master`s findings and recommendations in light of the legal arguments of the opposing parties. 1203 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419 (1793). In an earlier case, the question of jurisdiction was not raised. Georgia vs. Brailsford, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 402 (1792). The answers – good or bad – are often unclear and change over time.

For example, while it may seem easy to say that federal courts have jurisdiction over matters that „arise“ under federal law, it turns out that deciding when a claim arises under federal law and when it depends on or relates to state law is complex. While a basic premise may be that the courts of any government should be open to cases arising from the laws of that government, the Supreme Court has ruled in recent years that even when arguing for violations of federal antitrust or securities laws, plaintiffs may be prevented from applying to a federal court under another federal law. the Federal Arbitration Act and the forms provided to employees and consumers to require recourse to arbitration. The number of cases heard under the Court`s initial jurisdiction „has always represented only a tiny fraction of its total number of cases“[6], usually containing only one or two such cases per mandate. [1]: 20 Almost all cases reviewed by the United States…