Wire
Appeals court judges could decide which cases reach the Supreme Court
People asking the Supreme Court to hear their cases could face a new first screen: a rotating panel of 13 federal appeals judges, not the justices, would decide whether a petition moves on if four members vote yes.
A proposal from federal lawmakers would change who decides which cases reach the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead of the justices making the first call, a rotating panel of federal appeals court judges would review every request asking the Court to take a case.
The bill, introduced by Representative Jamie Raskin, would create what it calls a Supreme Court Certification Panel. Lawyers seeking Supreme Court review file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Under the proposal, all of those petitions would go first to the new panel rather than directly to the justices.
The panel would have the authority to grant or deny those petitions. If the panel grants review, the case would automatically be treated as accepted by the Supreme Court and placed on the Court’s docket for argument.
How the panel would work
The panel would include 13 judges from the United States courts of appeals. Each federal appellate circuit would be represented by one judge during a given Supreme Court term.
At the start of each term, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts would randomly select one eligible judge from each circuit. Eligible judges could include active judges who have served at least five years on the federal bench, as well as certain senior or retired judges authorized to serve.
No judge could serve on the panel for two consecutive terms. Among the group selected each year, the most senior judge would act as the presiding judge while the panel handles petitions.
Deciding which cases move forward
The panel would review every petition asking the Supreme Court to hear a case. Granting a petition would require the agreement of four members of the panel.
When the panel approves a petition, it would issue a brief written statement explaining why the request was granted and identifying the legal questions presented. If the panel denies a petition, it would issue an order stating that the criteria for review were not met, without further explanation.
The bill outlines several circumstances that could justify granting review. These include situations where federal appeals courts have issued conflicting decisions on the same legal question, when state and federal courts disagree on an important federal issue, or when a significant federal question has not yet been settled by the Supreme Court.
Other powers and reporting requirements