The judges meet twice a week for a private conference, and part of one of these weekly conferences is devoted to discussing potential cases and deciding which ones to accept. At least four of the nine judges must vote “yes” to a case to make the cut. Selected cases receive a writ of certiorari, a formal request from the Supreme Court for a review of the lower court`s decision. Dissatisfied with the trial court`s decision, Mr. Lyon appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, one of thirteen federal courts of appeals that hear appeals from federal district courts. A panel of three randomly appointed judges reviewed the case and upheld the district court`s decision that the zoo cannot be held accountable for its actions because, in publishing the results of the audit, it had simply been trying to fulfill its obligation not to discriminate under the Civil Rights Act. As soon as all motions in cert., the BIO, the letter of reply (if any) and amicus curiae briefs (if any) are filed, they are distributed to the judicial chambers. Seven of the current judges participate in the certificate pool, a labour-saving scheme where a certificate application is first reviewed by a registrar in one of seven chambers. The registrar prepares a memorandum on the case, which contains an initial recommendation as to whether the court should consider the case; The memorandum will be distributed to the seven chambers, where it will be considered by the clerks and possibly the judges of the city. Judge Samuel Alito does not participate in the certificate pool. Instead, his trainee lawyers self-check incoming certificate requests and give him direct recommendations. While the Supreme Court can review the entire case file, Lyon and the zoo agree that it will be helpful for judges to have easy access to the results of the audit, so they decide to file a joint appendix with those documents.

(If Mr. Lyon and the zoo had agreed that a common annex was not necessary, they could have filed an application to ask the court for permission not to prepare one.) Whoever loses the case will have to pay for the printing of the common annex, so it is in Mr. Lyon`s interest and the zoo to keep it as short as possible. The common annex is presented at the same time as Mr. Lyon`s letter of merit. Although amici often ask the court to allow split arguments – so that they can use part of the half-hour allotted to a party to present their own arguments – these requests are rarely accepted if they come from private groups. In Lyon v. Animal House Zoo, however, the court (as is often the case) granted the Attorney General`s request to share the arguments. Since the U.S. Attorney General will argue on behalf of the accused, she (or another lawyer in her office) will use ten minutes of the half-hour allotted to the zoo. If a judge agrees with the outcome of the case, but not with the majority`s reasoning, he or she may issue a concurring opinion.

Each judge may issue a separate dissenting opinion. In the event of a tie, the decision of the lower court remains valid. This may be the case if one of the nine judges is not involved in a case for any reason (for example, if a seat is vacant or if a judge has had to resign). In general, the Supreme Court is more likely to accept cases where lower court decisions disagree, creating a legal conflict that judges could resolve. Judges may also choose to hear cases that they personally consider “important” or that involve important social or political issues. The Supreme Court is the highest court for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution of the United States and other laws of the United States. For all cases contested before the Supreme Court, there are two parties: an “applicant” and a “defendant”. The plaintiff is the party who appeals the decision of the lower court and the defendant is the party who wishes to uphold the decision.

The court announces its decision in Lyon v. Animal House Zoo in open court. Here, the court issues an opinion in which it overturns the decision of the 2nd district and explains its reasons for the decision that on the 2nd. The General Court held that the Court had not ruled in favour of the zoo and should have ruled in favour of Mr Lyon instead. (Alternatively, the court could have upheld the case and ruled that the 2nd District was right and the zoo should not be held responsible, or it could have overturned the 2nd District`s decision, annulled it, and withdrawn the case, and ordered the 2nd District to try it based on theories, evidence, or arguments, which he had not yet taken into account.) Supreme Court justices hear oral arguments and decide cases that have been granted certiorari. These are usually controversial cases brought before lower courts of appeal. The court receives between 7,000 and 8,000 applications per quarter and hears oral arguments in about 80 cases. The designated judges then draft and circulate notices explaining the reasons for their decision. The time it takes to complete an advisory opinion depends on several factors, including the division of judges, the judge writing the opinion, and the court`s timeline.

Generally, all cases are decided when the court takes a summer break in late June or early July. Realistic court simulations focus on Bill of Rights cases with juvenile scenarios. All opinions of the Court of Justice are normally delivered on the last day of the Court`s term of office (the day in late June/early July when the Court is suspended for the summer). With the exception of this time limit, there are no rules on when decisions must be made. As a general rule, unanimous decisions are published earlier than those with concurring and dissenting opinions. Although some unanimous decisions are taken as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if they are heard in October, cannot be announced until the last day of the mandate. During the hearing, each party has about 30 minutes to present their case, but lawyers do not have to use all the time. The applicant pleaded first, then the respondent. If the petitioner sets aside time for rebuttal, he or she speaks last.

After the court sat, the Chief Justice recognized the applicant`s lawyer, who was already on the podium. The lawyer then begins, “Mr. Chief Justice, please the court.” Based on these reviews, the judges decide to add Lyon v. Animal House Zoo to the discussion list, a short list of cases they would like to discuss at their next private meeting or conference.