General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsQuestion for lawyers, can any conviction of any court of any jurisdiction be overturned by the US
Supreme Court?
I fear the answer.
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)
elleng
(134,536 posts)courts must have JURISDICTION of matters they handle, and Jurisdiction is peculiar to each MATTER.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)Is it only the one the DOJ would be involved in that could be? Of the 3?
elleng
(134,536 posts)fescuerescue
(4,464 posts)That got bumped the Supreme Court for the obvious reason that there is a Federal interest.
I suspect that this might happen again, since the felonies are predicated on Trump violating a Federal election law.
But that is years down the road.
Marius25
(3,213 posts)The Supreme Court only has jurisdiction in two cases. 1) When other appellate courts request an appeal on Constitutional issues and 2) they have original jurisdiction on cases between two or more states and high ranking dignitaries.
Ronwhynowhy
(3 posts)The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire US including state cases and even civil cases if they so choose
They can rule on any matter of law in the US
Marius25
(3,213 posts)They only have appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving two or more states, or foreign ambassadors.
Anyone can bring a federal case for any reason for any criminal or civil issue
In essence.
The Supreme Court can rule on any law in the US it wants to and word it however specifically or broadly they want
For example moving California voting against gay marriage to a federal court with no other state interest or foreign necessity
Real word
Marius25
(3,213 posts)It has to be a Constitutional issue that reaches the State (and usually Circuit) appellate courts.
The Supreme Court has no authority to disagree with the New York Criminal Court and demand they overturn the conviction.
Ronwhynowhy
(3 posts)The Supreme Court frequently overturns state laws
Most of their cases start from state laws
I dont know what you mean
They can absolutely tell New York no
Ms. Toad
(35,131 posts)but, as a general rule, they cannot rule on state matters.
When they overturn state laws it is nearly always because the state law runs afoul of the federal constitution.
NewHendoLib
(60,281 posts)Hermit-The-Prog
(36,123 posts)In particular, see the 2nd paragraph of Section 2.:
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Brother Buzz
(37,009 posts)![](/emoticons/shrug.gif)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Ligyron
(7,821 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)it could then end up there?
If Constitutional rights being violated was the accusation?
Ligyron
(7,821 posts)Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)which is why my predictions are so often correct.
3 SC justices for certain will abandon the law entirely to make cons happy, the question is will the other 2.
emulatorloo
(45,449 posts)some of his cases. Other than Clarence Thomas, they appear to have zero interest in protecting Trump.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)I appreciate everyone's answer.
Tomconroy
(7,611 posts)dpibel
(3,091 posts)Just a couple notable examples: Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel) and Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda warning) were originally pure state criminal cases.
If a state case implicates the US Constitution, the Supremes can get involved.
But other than cases where the Supremes have original jurisdiction, it's always discretionary for them to take a case.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)him, I worry and wonder.
But if they did decide to run interference for him they would be busy because I think this is just the beginning.
edhopper
(34,381 posts)If they find a Constitutional matter in the case.
Unfortunately, this SCOTUS doesn't care about the Constitution and rules however they please.
They can intervene if the want to.
Eliot Rosewater
(31,986 posts)edhopper
(34,381 posts)They are lawless and can rule with impunity.