Yes, but only by the US Supreme Court itself. In order for a decision to be set aside, an appellant has 25 days after the decision is released to petition the Court for a rehearing. If the Court grants the petition, which it rarely does, the justices may decide to change a prior decision based on new information or a failure to properly consider relevant information presented earlier.
If the Supreme Court denies the petition, the case is considered res judicata, or legally concluded. There is no right of appeal beyond this point.
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Answer:Yes, but the courts have to agree to sign over the conflict and the US court must approve the minor courts adjustment because Congress stripped the US Supreme Court of original jurisdiction over issues between the states.Answer:The first answer only applies to cases where the states are in conflict with each other, not where State Supreme Court rulings apply different interpretations to Federal or constitutional laws.When this happens, if a party to one of the actions petitions the High Court for a Writ of Certiorari, and the Supreme Court considers the matter adjudicated to be of sufficient importance to warrant a review, they may well grant certiorari to the petitioner in order to clarify how the Constitution or law is to be applied. This helps ensure more consistent ruling in lower level courts.On the other hand, if the opposite rulings involve differing individual state constitutional issues, the case would be outside the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the state Supreme Court for each state would issue the final decision.
Any trial court, federal or state, has the power to make a ruling like this. The rulings are always subject to appeal up through to the state or Federal Supreme Court. Even a state court ruling on the issue may be taken to the US Supreme Court.
Supreme Court justices may be of any ethnic heritage.
No. The Supreme Court has actually made a number of rulings in the exact opposite direction. The case Citizens United has given corporations the right to give unlimited donations to political candidates.
No. The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (Military Court of Appeals) and the US Supreme Court are in separate chains of authority. The former is a military court (an Article I tribunal), while the latter is a civilian court (and an Article III tribunal). Cases may be appealed from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces to the Supreme Court; however, this is a rare occurrence. In any event, there is no appellate court above the Supreme Court at all.
The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. When all appeals and lower courts have heard and ruled on a case it may go to the Supreme Court, but the court doesn’t have to hear it and may let the lower ruling stand or kick it back to the lower federal court.
That would be the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court made this decision on May 17, 1954
To caca
No, the Supreme Court has no part of the law making process. If someone challenges the validity of a law, it may end up in the Supreme Court.
"Better" is a subjective and relative term. The US Supreme Court holds more power and national prestige than the Supreme Court of Georgia, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's better. Some judges may prefer to serve their State rather than work for the federal government, and may think sitting on the Supreme Court of Georgia is better.
No Court is higher than the current Supreme Court.However, in older cases, the "Supreme Court" it refers to may be the equivalent of the current "High Court", as it was called then. In that case the Court of Appeal and Privy Council were higher authority.