Legal Definitions - certiorari

Certiorari is a formal request made to a higher court to review a decision made by a lower court. It is a legal mechanism by which a higher court, often an appellate court, exercises its discretion to choose which cases it will hear. Unlike an appeal that a party might have a right to pursue, a request for certiorari is entirely at the discretion of the higher court.

The term is most frequently associated with the process by which cases reach the United States Supreme Court. If a party loses a case in a lower court (such as a federal circuit court of appeals or a state's highest court) and wishes for the Supreme Court to review that decision, they must file a "petition for a writ of certiorari." The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear every case presented to it. Instead, it carefully selects cases that present significant legal questions, resolve conflicts between lower courts, or address important constitutional issues.

For the U.S. Supreme Court to grant certiorari and agree to hear a case, at least four of the nine Justices must vote in favor of reviewing it. This is often referred to as "granting cert." If fewer than four Justices agree, certiorari is denied, and the lower court's decision stands without further review by the Supreme Court. A denial of certiorari does not necessarily mean the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court's decision; it simply means the Court has chosen not to review the case at that time.

Here are some examples illustrating how certiorari works:

• Example 1: Resolving Conflicting Interpretations of Federal Law

  Imagine two different federal Courts of Appeals, one in California and one in New York, issue conflicting rulings on how a specific provision of a new federal environmental protection law should be interpreted. A company involved in a similar environmental dispute in a third state, whose case was decided based on one of these conflicting interpretations, might petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The company would argue that the Supreme Court needs to step in to provide a uniform interpretation of the federal law across the country. If four Justices agree that resolving this "circuit split" is important, they would grant certiorari, and the Supreme Court would hear the case to establish a binding precedent for all lower courts.

• Example 2: Addressing a Significant Constitutional Question

  Consider a state supreme court that upholds a new state law restricting certain forms of digital speech, arguing it's necessary for public safety. A civil liberties organization, representing individuals whose speech is affected, believes this law violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. After exhausting all appeals within the state court system, the organization would file a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. They would highlight the profound constitutional implications of the state law and the potential impact on free speech nationwide. If the Supreme Court sees this as a crucial constitutional question warranting national review, it would grant certiorari to examine the state court's decision.

• Example 3: Reviewing a Novel Legal Issue with Broad Impact

  Suppose a federal appeals court rules on a case involving the rights of individuals to access data stored on cloud servers located in another country, a relatively new area of law with no clear precedent. A technology company, concerned about the implications of this ruling for its international operations and user privacy, might seek certiorari from the Supreme Court. The company would argue that the case presents a novel legal issue with widespread implications for technology, international relations, and individual privacy, making it essential for the nation's highest court to provide guidance. If the Justices agree on the significance and novelty of the issue, they would grant certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.