What happens to a trials court decision when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

[Tax Counsel]

A) what happens when the appeal which got reversed by the Supreme Court had itself reversed the trials court decision? In the absence of any more specific directions from the Supreme Court, does reversing the appeal REVIVE the trials court decision? (Remember, we are talking about a CIVIL decision here, not a criminal conviction or acquittal.)

I've gone back to your original questions because it looks to me like this thread has gone a little off track. I'll outline the general process here (in case that did not go to a jury) but to keep it simple, it'll be a case that has just one issue. The exact steps will vary a bit depending on what court system the case is in, but what follows is an overview of the typical process.

1. Trial court releases its opinion on the issue and its order, but the order is not final until the time for appeal has expired.
2. If one of the parties files a timely appeal as a matter of right (which means an appeal that appellant doesn't have to first get approval from the appellate court to file, then the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case and the jurisdiction over the case now lies with the appeals court. That effectively suspends the trial court's order until the appeal is resolved.
3. The appeals court decides that the trial court was wrong and releases its opinion and order in the case, but the decision of that court is not final until the time the parties to file a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. That writ asks the Court to accept the case for review.
4. If the Supreme Court accepts it for review then jurisdiction is now in the Supreme Court and the action of the appeals court is suspended until the Supreme Court renders its decision. Let's say the Supreme Court decides that the trial court got it right on that one and reverses the appellate decision in full.
5. The Supreme Court then sends the case back to the court of appeals to take action consistent with the decision of the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction returns to the court of appeals. As the appeals court's earlier order was reversed on the only issue before it, it would issue an order vacating its previous order and send it back to the trial court.
6. Once the case returns to the trial court, the trial court regains jurisdiction. In this simple example the trial court's previous order that was suspended during the appeals process will now become final.

Remember, this is just a general overview of the process of an appeal of a simple case with just one issue to be resolved. Also each step may involve several different actions by the parties and the court.

What I probably need access to is some sort of federal judge's handbook of legal procedure. Are such things available online?

There is no such handbook in the federal system. However, there are rules for the courts to follow. The actions in the trial court are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the appellate procedures are found in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (FRAP). Each of those pages has download links to PDF versions of their respective rules, since you said you prefer PDFs. You also need to look at any federal statutes that apply to the particular type of action being filed to find the rules Congress set out for that particular claim and look at any local rules that apply to that court (for example, if appealing to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Tenth circuit has additional rules that must be follows, which may differ from what other circuits have in their local rules.

What exactly are you trying to figure out? What is it about the procedure process in the Trump case that you don't understand or that you think is problematic? Each case is different so the exact steps the case will take along the way from filing the complaint in the trial court to the issuance of the final order will be bit different in each case. So those details are important.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Merely unlikely since it would appear (just MHO) to breach the separation of powers doctrine for Congress

The thing is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution. By definition the Supreme Court's decision can't be wrong (as far as the law is concerned) because there is no forum for review of its decision. The remedy for Congress if it does not like a constitutional decision is to start the process to amend the Constitution to reflect to what it believes it should say.

This is different from the practice in the U.K. where the Parliment is the final arbiter of the law and may overturn the decisions of any of its courts. The founders wanted a different approach because they had fears that Congress would be too powerful if there wasn't some check on its power.

Of course for any case remotely controversial there will be people outside the Court who think the Court got it wrong. I've disagreed with some of its decisions myself. But the only view that matters in the law is the majority opinion of the Court until Congress decides to act and enacts a statute (in a matter not involving the Constitution) or the full process for amending the Constitution has been concluded by ratification by a sufficient number of states.

 

[StephenS]

Remember, this is just a general overview of the process of an appeal of a simple case with just one issue to be resolved. Also each step may involve several different actions by the parties and the court.

Thanks for the info, but that was not really what I was asking about in my original post

There is no such handbook in the federal system. However, there are rules for the courts to follow. The actions in the trial court are governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) and the appellate procedures are found in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. (FRAP). Each of those pages has download links to PDF versions of their respective rules, since you said you prefer PDFs. You also need to look at any federal statutes that apply to the particular type of action being filed to find the rules Congress set out for that particular claim and look at any local rules that apply to that court (for example, if appealing to the federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, the Tenth circuit has additional rules that must be follows, which may differ from what other circuits have in their local rules.

Thanks very much for the links.

What exactly are you trying to figure out?

You REALLY want to know? OK, but it will require an EXTENDED answer;

I am trying to figure out the details of what the US Supreme Court did in Trump v. Anderson when it reversed the Colorado Supreme Court's decision for Anderson v. Griswold. In particular what impact their decisaion had on the Denver district court decision (which had been partially affiordfmed by the Colorado Supreme Court).

Hence all the permutations I asked about in my ORIGINAL post. In that post I was trying to find out what the legal rules & precedents were which applied to the situation I described. I was trying to do so in a comprehensive fashion, but apparently I only baffled people. Either that or there ARE no such rules & precedents.

More specifically. I was trying to figure out what the word "reverse" accomplishes. For in the ruling majority's judgment for Trump v. Anderson (2024) they wrote (p117):



That was all the Court did. It said nothing about the status of the district court decision nor did it explicitly remand the case back to the Colorado Supreme Court and let them handle the district court.

In my original post I was trying to find out what happened to a district court decision in broad terms and leave the complications out of it, at least initially. Why? Because the Court's use of that word "reverse" is one of the complications; and to explain WHY that particular word was a complication at all wioukd have had to point out a FURTHER complicationL in that case the Court appeared to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court on jurisdictional ground yet nowhere did it declare that that Colorado Supreme Court decision suffered from a want of jurisdiction. If so then that would have meant that their ENTIRE decision would be what Evan Tsen Lee called "coram non judice": a nullity.

And not just that decision. The very nature of the grounds on which the US Supreme Court chose to base that reversal implied that the district court decision was ALSO "coram non judice". The fact that it ruled AGAINST the petitioner is (as far as I can tell) irrelevant. Correct me if I am wrong but when a court suffers from a want of jurisdiction in a particular case what it cannot do is delve into the merits of that case, yet that is what BOTH Colorado courts did.

Which brings us back to the significance of that word "reverse" in Trump v. Anderson.

One reason oit may matter: in ordinary (non-judicial) English, to REVERSE a thing is to go back to a previous state. Thus, when I reverse a car I go back to where I previously was. Hence my query about whether reversing a decision of an appeals court by a still higher appeals court undoes what the lower appeals court had done to the decision of a trials court.

Now that said, after consulting assorted legal dictionaries that does NOT appear to be what that word "reverse" means in court judgments, yet those dictionaries also make it somewhat unclear just what exactly that woird DOES do. The eighth edition (2004) of Black's Law Dictionary uses the word "overturn"



But that word "overturn" is itself arguably not precise enough for the situation found in Trump v. Anderson.

But that is NOT the only reason taht word matters. A more important reason is that as far as I can tell the US Supreme Court (& possibly the circuit courts of appeal also) appears to use that word reverse when it considers a decision to be incorrect yet the court which issued it STILL possesses the authority to issue a decision of SOME kind. Hence the tendency for it to remand a case where that word is used back to that same court. When the Court decides that a lower court does NOT have the necessary authority it tends to use a different words: dismiss.

Then you have those situations like Acheson Hotels v. Laufer (2023) where a case cannot proceed for one reason or another but the lower court still has the authority to deal with it so it gets remanded back to them to administer the coup d'grace (the following pic is from p3 of the decision). Even then they do not use the word "reverse". Instead the word "vacate" is usedf plus the word "dismiss", with the Supreme Court handling the vacating part and the lower court the dismissing part. .



Note that Justice Thomas used the same two words in his concurring opinion for that case. He just would have dismissed the case for a different reason
(p9):



(Justice Jackson took issue with the court's issue of that word "vacate" in another concurring opinion and gives an erxtened discussion of it.)

So why didn't the Court do the same thing in Trump v, Anderson (ie EXPLICITLY remand the case back to the Colorado Supreme Court & let them handle the district court)?

Presumably because they realised that they could not, Not if the Colorado Supreme Court lacked the jurisdiction to handle those kind of cases without beiung turned into another nullity.

So why then didn't the US Supreme Court itself vacate the district court decision itself?

That is less clear. Was it because it considered a reversal would also vacate that decision? Or was it because it felt it had no need to do so because the part of the decision which the Colorado Supreme Court would not impact on their own petitioner (Trump)?

Note what the latter would be implying though: namely, that the US Supreme Court did not realise that it was dealing with a want of jurisdiction when it issued its rulings for Trump v, Anderson, which seems absurd.

Hence the questions in my original post.

(By the way, you claimed that that Denver district court "filed an order closing the case" of Anderson v, Griswold on 3/8/2024. I would STILL like to know where you found that information and where I can go to view a copy of that order. Searches online with Google has failed to find it. Thanks in advance.)

 

[StephenS]

The thing is that the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what the Constitution. By definition the Supreme Court's decision can't be wrong (as far as the law is concerned)

By that yardstick, Dred Scot & Roe v. Wade would both STILL be the law of the land inside the United States. Are they?

BTW, the "final arbiter" is NOT the Supreme Court but the ad hoc legislature set up under article 5 to amend the US Constitution. It has the power to overule tthe Supreme Court. Hence the 11th Amendment (which overturned the Supreme Court's 1793 decision in Chisholm v.Georgia), the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment (generally held to have overturned the Supreme Court's Dred Scot decision). & the 24th Amendment, which overturned Breedlove v. Suttles (1937) which allowed states to evade the 15th Amendment and thereby disenfranchise African-Americans using poll taxes.

The Suprme Court is simply the de facto "final arbiter" because the article 5 legislature hardly ever meets

because there is no forum for review of its decision.

Nonsense! Of course there is: the Supreme Court itself. How else do you suppose Roe v. Wade got overturned?

The remedy for Congress if it does not like a constitutional decision is to start the process to amend the Constitution to reflect to what it believes it should say.

This is different from the practice in the U.K. where the Parliment is the final arbiter of the law and may overturn the decisions of any of its courts. The founders wanted a different approach because they had fears that Congress would be too powerful if there wasn't some check on its power.

It is NOT different. Not in principle/ You are simply pointing to the WRONG legslature. The US's article 5 legislature is the true coutnerpart to the British Parliament. Congress is a "mere" subordinate legislature with limtied powers, higher than the state legislatures but lower than the article 5 one, which (like the British Parliament) has a plenary legislative authority.

 

[StephenS]

The decision of the Supreme Court does not have to use the word "jurisdiction" for the case decision to clearly reflect that. That's the situation with this opinion.

Then could you pleae point me to a case or two where the US Supreme Court does NOT use the word "jurisdiction", let alone declare a want of jurisdiction, yet where "the case decision...clearly reflect" that want of jurisdiction aspect.

 

[cbg]

What happens to the decision of a trials court when an appeal of that decision is reversed by the US Supreme Court?

That depends on the court, the decision, and the terms of the reversal. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, which I think is what you are looking for.

 

[Tax Counsel]

(By the way, you claimed that that Denver district court "filed an order closing the case" of Anderson v, Griswold on 3/8/2024. I would STILL like to know where you found that information and where I can go to view a copy of that order. Searches online with Google has failed to find it. Thanks in advance.)

You can't get it online. The district courts in Colorado do not put out online anything other than a log of the actions taken in the case. If you want to see it, you need to go personally to the clerk of the court to do so. I don't you'd gain anything useful in doing that and certainly wouldn't worth traveling any distance to do so.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Nonsense! Of course there is: the Supreme Court itself. How else do you suppose Roe v. Wade got overturned?

The word "review" in the appellate context refers to the situation where a higher court takes a decision on case from a lower court and considers whether the lower court got it right, with the decision of the higher court binding the lower court. There is no other court or body in our system that reviews the Supreme Court decisions, i.e. makes a determination in the same case that affects the decision the lower court made in that case. Roe was not the case the court was deciding in Dobbs so it was not reviewing Roe. It did overturn the result in Roe, but as that was not the case the court was deciding — its decision in Dobbs changed nothing for the litigants in Roe.

 

[Tax Counsel]

By that yardstick, Dred Scot & Roe v. Wade would both STILL be the law of the land inside the United States. Are they?

They are not. But not because some higher body reviewed those cases and reversed them. The phrase "final arbiter" means that the litigants in that particular case have no other place to go to get the result they seek. For them, the Supreme Court is the end of the line. There is no one else the parties may go to change the result for them. It's over.

BTW, the "final arbiter" is NOT the Supreme Court but the ad hoc legislature set up under article 5 to amend the US Constitution.

When the states ratify an amendment they are not interpreting the current Constitution nor making any decision about cases already litigated. They are changing the Constitution, providing a new rule to follow. It does not change the case result for the litigants in cases already decided before the amendment.

That's a key distinction here: the courts decide a particular controversy between two parties. That's all the power they have. But in our legal system, which applies the English concept of stare decisis, those cases are important because they signal how future cases with the same facts will be decided given the same law.

When the Congress and the states amend the Constitution, that sets a rule that courts will apply in future cases before them. That does not mean cases decided before the change were wrongly decided. It just means the results of future cases may turn out differently. Our Constitution has never been amended by a convention of the states, which is the other way an amendment may be made.

The states when amending the constitution do not sit as a court deciding individual cases like Parliment does in the English system.

Again, it's important to draw the distinction that what courts do is decide the particular case/controversy before them. The Supreme Court is the last place the parties may go to resolve their disputes. Neither Congress nor the state legislatures will take up that particular case and give the parties the chance at a different outcome. The roles of the courts and the legislatures are distinct in that regard.

It is NOT different. Not in principle/ You are simply pointing to the WRONG legslature. The US's article 5 legislature is the true coutnerpart to the British Parliament. Congress is a "mere" subordinate legislature with limtied powers, higher than the state legislatures but lower than the article 5 one, which (like the British Parliament) has a plenary legislative authority.

Article V does not set up a process to determine the result of individual cases. It's a process to amend the Constitution, which sets up the rules to follow going forward. It does not disturb cases already decided. The parties in those cases don't get their cases revived and the outcomes changed as a result of the amendment.

Congress and state legislatures make the laws/amendments to the Constitution. The courts decide cases based on applying the rules of the Constitution and statutes as of the time the case is litigated.

 

[StephenS]

The word "review" in the appellate context refers to the situation where a higher court takes a decision on case from a lower court and considers whether the lower court got it right, with the decision of the higher court binding the lower court. There is no other court or body in our system that reviews the Supreme Court decisions, i.e. makes a determination in the same case that affects the decision the lower court made in that case.

Now you are splitting hairs. Dobbs was about abortion. In order to render a decision in Dobbs it first had to "review"what the prevailing law was about abortion, including the legal precedents governing that issue. What word other than "review" would you use for such a process?

Roe was not the case the court was deciding in Dobbs so it was not reviewing Roe. It did overturn the result in Roe, but as that was not the case the court was deciding — its decision in Dobbs changed nothing for the litigants in Roe.

First of all, the Jane Roe of that caee (aka Norma McCorvey) is now dead. But even were she still alive she would now be past the age of child-bearing.

Secondly, Roe v Wade started off not in 1973 but in 1969 when McCorvey became pregnant with her third child. By the time it ambled its way to the US Supreme Court it was now 1973 and she now had a live baby rather than a fetus. Meaning the entire issue of whether she could abort that fetus had arguably become "moot" shall we say.

In other words, you claim the Court's "decision in Dobbs changed nothing for the litigants in Roe." The short answer to that is: so what? The decision given in Roe v. Wade itself ALSO changed nothing for the litigants in Roe if only because by the time it was handed down it was too late for McCorvey to get the abortion which had sparked that court case in the first place.

Stated differently, the Supreme Court in 1973 could arguably have dismissed the case they had been asked to adjudicate upon on the ground that it was now moot.

They chose not to.

Why? Presumably because the issue of abortion was seen as more important than whether or not it was too late to deal with the specific abortion which had sparked the case in the first place.

So too with Dobbs. What mattered more to millions of American woimen was the change in precedent being set set by overturning Roe.

 

[StephenS]

They are not. But not because some higher body reviewed those cases and reversed them. The phrase "final arbiter" means that the litigants in that particular case have no other place to go to get the result they seek. For them, the Supreme Court is the end of the line. There is no one else the parties may go to change the result for them. It's over.

Then by that yardstick Roe should have been upheld in Dobbs, should it not? After all, there waa no higher court available to review its existence.

When the states ratify an amendment they are not interpreting the current Constitution nor making any decision about cases already litigated. They are changing the Constitution, providing a new rule to follow. It does not change the case result for the litigants in cases already decided before the amendment.

First of all, are you by any chance suggesting that had Dred Scott survived to 1868 that the US Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford (namely that he was (a) not human and (b) not a citizen of the United States) would NOT have been affected by the ratification of the 14th Amendment? That is to say, that he, alone among all other African-Americans, would have remained, legally, as not human and not a citizen (on the ground that constitutional amendmenrts do "not change the case result for the litigants")?

Secondly, there would appear to be nothing to stop a constitutional amendment vacating specific rulings of a specific court case of a specific court and quashing any specific orders which that court might have issued in relation thereto should the Amendment's authors so choose. Congress might not be able to by an ordinary statute for separation of powers reasons, but constitutional amendments are arguably not subject to that limitation.

Thirdly, I would remind you that the 21st Amendment did more than "provid[e] a new rule to follow". It also got rid of the pre-existing rules by specifically repealing the 18th Amendment.

That's a key distinction here: the courts decide a particular controversy between two parties. That's all the power they have. But in our legal system, which applies the English concept of stare decisis, those cases are important because they signal how future cases with the same facts will be decided given the same law.

When the Congress and the states amend the Constitution, that sets a rule that courts will apply in future cases before them.

That is only the default. There is nothing to stop an Amendment being specifically made retrospective. (The ban on ex post facto laws in article 1 only applies to Acts of Congress, not constitutional amendments.)

In fact even implicit retrospectivity would seem to be possible; and yes, I have an actual example in mind: section 3 of the 14th Amendment. It was used to penalise those Southrners involved in the Civil War despite that war ending BEFORE that Amendmernt was drafted, never mind ratified.

The states when amending the constitution do not sit as a court deciding individual cases like Parliment does in the English system.

First if all, you are forgetting impeachment cases. That said, I'll grant you it isn't Congress per se which acts as a court in those but the Senate. (The House of Reps plays the role of prosecutor.)

But then the same goes for the English/British/UK Parliament. It isn't a court either and (AFAIK) never has been (impeaching & trying Charles I aside.) Maybe you are confusing their Parliament with their House of Lords (their equivalent of the Senate), which once upon a time did function as their highest court. Yet even then it was no\t the ENTIRE House of Lords which did so but only a committee of made up of the Law Lords (ie the judicial peers).

Again, it's important to draw the distinction that what courts do is decide the particular case/controversy before them. The Supreme Court is the last place the parties may go to resolve their disputes. Neither Congress nor the state legislatures will take up that particular case and give the parties the chance at a different outcome. The roles of the courts and the legislatures are distinct in that regard.

You appear to be obsessed with the specific outcome of individual cases for particular litigants as opposed to the law decided by those cases.

Article V does not set up a process to determine the result of individual cases. It's a process to amend the Constitution, which sets up the rules to follow going forward. It does not disturb cases already decided. The parties in those cases don't get their cases revived and the outcomes changed as a result of the amendment.

At the risk of repeating myself, so Dred Scott (had he lived to 1868) would have remained legally NOT human and a non-citizen despite the 14th Amendment? Is that what you are suggesting?

What you describe about those court cases is simply the default position, NOT the mandatory one. An article 5 amendment can enact absolutely anything (which is--reportedly--partly why Congress has never dared allow an article 5 convention; it fears the consequences), up to and including trashing every federal court case going back to 1789 should its authors get it into their heads to do so.

After all, what do you imagine the consequences would be for the federal courts & their cases should such an Amendment ever repeal the entire US Constitution, thereby putting an end to the entire Union & its government? If the 18th Amendment could be repealed there would seem to be nothing to prevent another repealing the rest. What do you imagine would happen to all those federal court cases if there no longer was a federal goverrnment and a federal court system to uphold & enforce them?

Congress and state legislatures make the laws/amendments to the Constitution. The courts decide cases based on applying the rules of the Constitution and statutes as of the time the case is litigated.

The article 5 legislature is a separate ;legislature. Congress and the state legislatures are part of that legislature, but to say that THEY make amendments to the Constitution is akin to claiming that the US Senate and H0use of Representatives make lawa.

They don't. They are, however, the components of a legislature (Congress) which DOES make (federal) laws.

So too with article 5. In fact, strictly speaking it actually contemplates FOUR separate legislatures (or at least legislative structures for the article 5 legislature):

1) Congress + state legislatures
2) Congress + state conventions
3) Federal convention + state legislatures
4) Federal convention + state conventions.

 

[army judge]

Thread closed.
We don't do hypothetical, legal punditry, or even legal puffery.

If you have a legal issue or problem, hire yourself an attorney.