A rule of legal construction that states that four adjectives side by side are the most powerful modifiers The rule of four is a rule used in Supreme Court practice to decide which cases to hear. It states that if four or more judges agree that a case should be heard, it should be heard. This is not a legally codified rule, but a precedent set in the history of the Supreme Court. The “rule of four” has been explained by various judges in legal opinions over the years. [2] For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: “The `rule of four` is not an order of Congress. This is a working rule developed by the Court of Justice as a practical means of determining whether a case merits examination, because if four judges consider that a question of law of general interest is raised, that is sufficient to prove that the issue is of such importance. This is a fair rule of thumb if we assume that four judges attach such importance to an individual review of the cases considered. [3] The rule of four is required by the Constitution, no law, not even the Supreme Court`s own rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the court had the discretion to decide which appeals are heard under the Judiciary Act 1891, the Judiciary Act 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selection Act 1988. [1] A good example can be found in the conflicting opinions (as such, i.e. non-advisory of the Court), in Rogers v. Missouri Pac. R.

Co., Justice Frankfurter and Justice John Marshall Harlan II discussed their understanding of the conventions surrounding the Rule of Four. [5] In particular, the judges disagreed on whether all judges, having been duly granted by a vote of four judges, were obliged to rule on the merits of the motion (rather than vote to dismiss it). Frankfurt J. disagreed that judges were required to rule on the merits of an application, even if it was duly approved, but Justice Harlan disagreed. Justice Harlan held that even if he disagreed with the granting of certiorari, the Rule of Four “requires that, once certiorari has been granted, a case be disposed of on the basis that it will be duly heard unless considerations arise that were not obvious or fully considered at the time certiorari was granted.” [6] The “rule of four” is the practice of the Supreme Court that grants a request for review only if there are at least four votes in favour. The rule is an unwritten internal rule; It is not dictated by law or the Constitution. Under the rule, the court can grant a review and hear oral arguments, even if a majority of five judges prefers not to. (Even if four judges are inclined to hear a case, those judges may not vote in favour of a review if they think the court as a whole is likely to make a decision on the issue they disagree with.) The rule also applies to other actions brought by the court – for example, the decision to defer processing a request for review until another matter involving the same issue has been resolved. If four or more Supreme Court justices agree to hear a case, then the whole court must discuss the issue. If a sitting president loses four or more of the states he won in the first election in the second election cycle, he effectively loses his mandate, even if he is not literally removed from office. Amicus = “friend”, curiae = “court”.

Amicus Curiae means “friend of the court”. The applicant must be a third party [presumably interested]. The two parties concerned do not file amicus curiae briefs: they file briefs (and answers) of merit. To file an amicus curiae brief, the amici (person or organization wishing to file a pleading) must obtain either the consent of the parties or the consent of the court. In general, these interested parties are usually organizations on one side or the other. In a gun case, for example, you`ll usually see the Brady Center on one side and the NRA on the other. Policy question(s): This is probably the most interesting and nebulous. In essence, the Court will not take decisions that are best left to the other two branches. A classic example (although unfortunately more applicable) is the political division of states into electoral units (redistricting). Frankfurter (a Supreme Court justice) wrote a majority opinion in Colgrove v. Green, in which the Supreme Court refused to rule on a redistricting case, saying the court “should not get into this political thicket.” 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946).

Frankfurter believed that district redistribution was a matter that would be best in the competent hands of the state legislature. Take, for example, a case involving the correct definition of an apple. Imagine if Court 1 had decided the case in 1800, stating that an apple is “a fleshy fruit which envelops a kernel of seeds, with a waxy skin which may have a number of colours, but which is most often red, green or yellow”. Big! It makes sense so far. However, imagine that Court 2 1805 hears a case with the same question (the definition of apple) and decides that it is a “round pasty fruit with easily divisible segments, each of which contains seeds.” Wait a minute. It looks more like an orange than an apple, and more importantly, everything the first dish worked for has been turned upside down in 5 years! Now imagine if this scenario were to repeat itself – litigants and courts would never be sure of the definition of an apple! Therefore, stare decisis, where courts rely on precedent when they can, is paramount to a common law system. “A rule of legal interpretation.” is wrong for a variety of reasons. For one, legal construction is not a problem for AP US Gov students. More importantly, it`s completely made up and it`s not true! There can never be more than four members of the opposition party on a Senate committee, if four or more legislators agree that a bill needs to be amended, then the debate and the process must start again.

Theoretical character: This essentially means that regardless of the Supreme Court`s decision, the particular result will not change. For example, there was a contentious issue in Roe v. Wade (when the case was decided, she had already given birth to a child). Therefore, some argued that the case was controversial because, regardless of the court`s decision, Roe could not abort the child (he had already been born). However, the court argued that Roe could get pregnant again, so the case was not contentious. A better example is a case of racial discrimination and admission to law school. If the case goes to the Supreme Court, it is likely that the student was accepted to another law school and graduated. Therefore, his case is likely to be questionable.

The United States is divided into four regions — loosely the North, South, West and Midwest — all of which have similar voting behavior and support similar policies. Forge ahead. When a party appeals to the Supreme Court, it seeks a writ of certiorari. All these petitions end up (essentially) in a gigantic stack called a “certificate pool”. To determine which cases will be anchored (and therefore heard), judges vote. As long as four justices vote “yes” in a case, the Supreme Court will hear it, hence the “rule of four.” The Rule of Four is a practice of the U.S. Supreme Court that allows four of the nine justices to issue a writ of certiorari. This is intended, inter alia, to prevent a majority of the Court from examining the Court`s file. While the quadripartite rule has generally remained constant for some time — meaning it takes at least four affirmative votes to approve a request for certiorari — the secondary aspects have changed over the years, and judges have not always agreed on these aspects. [4] Standing: This is arguably one of the most significant barriers to entry.

Standing refers to a particular entity that is “violated” (not necessarily physically) by the law in question. Take, for example, several of the plaintiffs in Heller v. DC. Originally, there were several plaintiffs in the case, but Anthony Heller was the only applicant who applied for a handgun licence and was denied. The other complainants tried to claim that they were considering an application, but for some reason they were too scared or did not do so.