The rule of four is a convention in the U.S. Supreme Court that mandates a minimum of four justices to vote in favor of granting certiorari. Certiorari is an extraordinary writ that instructs a lower court to provide the record of a case for review. It is a special proceeding that allows a higher court to examine the actions of a lower tribunal, board, or judicial officer for exceeding their jurisdiction. The U.S. Supreme Court primarily uses certiorari to review the majority of cases it chooses to hear. The rule of four plays a crucial role in defining the Court’s institutional function and controlling access to its jurisdiction.
The Rule of Four is a convention that requires a minimum of four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court to vote in favor of granting certiorari for a case to be considered by the Court. Certiorari is an extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, instructing a lower court to provide the case record for review. It allows a higher court to examine the decision made by a lower court. For instance, if an individual is convicted of a crime and appeals to a higher court, the higher court may issue a writ of certiorari to review the lower court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court primarily uses certiorari to review the majority of cases it chooses to hear. By controlling the cases it considers, the Court has the authority to define its own institutional role. An example of the Rule of Four in action is the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, which the U.S. Supreme Court heard in 2015. This case addressed the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Four justices voted in favor of granting certiorari, leading to the case being heard by the Court. Another example is the case of Texas v. Pennsylvania, which was presented to the Court in 2020. This case involved the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election and allegations of constitutional violations by certain states in their handling of the election. Four justices voted against granting certiorari, resulting in the case not being heard by the Court. These examples demonstrate how the Rule of Four determines whether a case will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. If at least four justices vote in favor of granting certiorari, the case will be heard. Otherwise, it will not be heard.
The Rule of Four is a principle followed by the United States Supreme Court, which states that at least four out of the nine justices must agree to hear a case in order for it to be granted a writ of certiorari and proceed to oral arguments.
The Rule of Four ensures that the Supreme Court does not become overwhelmed with cases and allows the justices to focus on those that have a significant legal impact or involve conflicting interpretations of the law.
The Rule of Four acts as a filtering mechanism, as it requires a minimum level of agreement among the justices before a case can be considered for review. This helps prioritize cases that have a higher chance of being granted certiorari.
No, the Rule of Four is a longstanding tradition and an integral part of the Supreme Court’s decision-making process. It cannot be bypassed or overridden by any individual justice or external entity.
If the Rule of Four is not met for a particular case, it means that the case will not be granted certiorari and will not proceed to oral arguments. The decision of the lower court will stand.
Yes, the Rule of Four applies to all types of cases that are brought before the Supreme Court, including constitutional issues, federal law disputes, and conflicts between lower courts.
The Rule of Four is a procedural rule that has been followed by the Supreme Court for many years. Any changes or modifications to this rule would require a formal amendment to the Court’s internal procedures, which is unlikely to occur without significant justification.
The Rule of Four helps manage the workload of the Supreme Court by allowing the justices to focus on cases that have a higher chance of resolving important legal issues or creating legal precedents.
No, there are no exceptions to the Rule of Four. It applies uniformly to all cases seeking review by the Supreme Court.
While the Rule of Four is a well-established principle, it is not immune to criticism or questioning. However, any challenges or questions regarding the Rule of Four would need to be addressed through the appropriate legal channels, such as potential legislative or constitutional changes.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/rule-of-four/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Rule Of Four. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/rule-of-four/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Rule Of Four. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/rule-of-four/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Rule Of Four. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/rule-of-four/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts