text:
History of New York City (prehistory–1664)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
History of New York City
Lenape and New Netherland, to 1664
New Amsterdam
British and Revolution, 1665–1783
Federal and early American, 1784–1854
Tammany and Consolidation, 1855–1897
(Civil War, 1861–1865)
Early 20th century, 1898–1945
Post–World War II, 1946–1977
Modern and post-9/11, 1978–
See also
Timelines: NYC • Bronx • Brooklyn • Queens • Staten Island
Category
v
t
e
The history of New York City has been influenced by the prehistoric geological formation during the last glacial period of the territory that is today New York City. The area was long inhabited by the Lenape; after initial European exploration in the 16th century, the Dutch established New Amsterdam in 1626. In 1664, the English conquered the area and renamed it New York.
Contents
[hide]
1 Human prehistory
2 Dutch settlement
3 Arrival of the English
4 See also
5 Notes
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links
Human prehistory[edit]
Archaeological excavations indicate that the first humans settled the area as early as 9,000 years ago. The area was abandoned, however, possibly because the warming climate of the region lead to the local extinction of many larger game species upon which the early inhabitants depended for food.
A second wave of inhabitants entered the region approximately 3,000 years ago and left behind more advanced hunting implements such as bows and arrows. The remains of approximately 8,000 such early encampments have been found throughout the city. The region has probably remained continually inhabited from that time.
By the time of the arrival of Europeans, the Lenape were cultivating fields of vegetation through the slash and burn technique.[1][2][3][4][5][6] This extended the productive life of planted fields. They also harvested vast quantities of fish and shellfish from the bays of the area,[7] and, in southern New Jersey, harvested clams year-round.[8] The success of these methods allowed the tribe to maintain a larger population than nomadic hunter-gatherers could support. Scholars have estimated that at the time of European settlement, there may have been about 15,000 Lenape total in approximately 80 settlement sites around much of the New York City area, alone.[9]:5-6 In 1524 Lenape in canoes met Giovanni da Verrazzano, the first European explorer to enter New York Harbor, who called the area New Angoulême to honor his patron, King Francis I of France.[10]
Dutch settlement[edit]
Main article: New Amsterdam
In 1613, the Dutch established a trading post on the western shore of Manhattan Island. Jan Rodrigues was the first documented non-Native American to live on Manhattan Island.[11]
In 1614 the New Netherland company was established, and consequently they settled a second fur trading post in what is today Albany, called Fort Nassau. It was not until 1623, however, that the Dutch interests in the area were other than commercial, and under the auspices of the newly formed Dutch West India Company they built Fort Amsterdam in 1624, a crude fortification that stood on the location of the present Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House on Bowling Green. The fort was designed mainly to protect the company's trading operations further upriver from attack by other European powers. Within a year, a small settlement, called New Amsterdam had grown around the fort, with a population that included mostly the garrison of company troops, as well as a contingent of Walloon, French and Flemish huguenot families who were brought in primarily to farm the nearby land of lower Manhattan and supply the company operations with food. Sarah Rapalje (b.1625) was the first European born in the future New York City. Later in 1626, Peter Minuit purchased Manhattan Island and Staten Island from native people in exchange for trade goods.[12]
The Dutch took heavy advantage of the Native American reliance on wampum as a trading medium by exchanging cheap European-made metal tools for beaver pelts. By using such tools, the natives greatly increased the rate of production of wampum, debasing its value for trade. Lenape men abandoned hunting and fishing for food in favor of beaver trapping. Moreover, the Dutch began manufacturing their own wampum with superior tools in order to further dominate the trading network among themselves and the natives (a practice undertaken by the settlers in New England as well). As a result of this increase, beavers were largely trapped out in the Five Boroughs within two decades, leaving the Lenape largely dependent on the Dutch. As a result, the native population declined drastically throughout the 17th century through a combination of disease, starvation, and outward migration.
As the beaver trade shifted to Upstate New York, New Amsterdam became an increasingly important trading hub for the coast of North America. Since New Netherland was a trading operation and not viewed as colonization enterprise for transplanting Dutch culture, the directors of New Netherland were largely unconcerned with the ethnic and racial balance of the community. The economic activity brought in a wide variety of ethnic groups to the fledgling city during the 17th century, including Spanish, Jews, and Africans, some of them as slaves.
Stadt Huys
The Dutch origins can still be seen in many names in New York City, such as Coney Island (from "Konijnen Eiland" – Dutch for "Rabbit Island"), Bowery from bouwerij (modern Dutch boerderij = "farm"), Brooklyn (from Breukelen), Harlem from Haarlem (formalized in 1658 as Nieuw Haarlem), Greenwich Village (from Greenwijck, meaning "pine wood quarter"), Flushing (from Vlissingen) and Staten Island (from "Staaten Eylandt").
Willem Kieft became director general in 1638 but five years later was embroiled in Kieft's War against the Native Americans.[13] The Pavonia Massacre, across the Hudson River in present-day Jersey City resulted in the death of eighty natives in February 1643. Following the massacre, eleven Algonquian tribes joined forces and nearly defeated the Dutch. Holland sent additional forces to the aid of Kieft, which took part in the overwhelming defeat of the Native Americans, leading to a peace treaty on August 29, 1645, to end the war.[14]
Manhattan Island was in some measure self-selected as a future metropolis by its extraordinary natural harbor formed by New York Bay (actually the drowned lower river valley of the Hudson River, enclosed by glacial moraines), the East River (actually a tidal strait) and the Hudson River, all of which are confluent at the southern tip, from which all later development spread. Also of prime importance was the presence of deep fresh water aquifers near the southern tip, especially the Collect Pond, and an unusually varied geography ranging from marshland to large outcrops of Manhattan schist, a hard metamorphic rock that is ideal for foundations of large buildings.
The Fall of New Amsterdam
Arrival of the English[edit]
In 1664, English ships entered Gravesend Bay in modern Brooklyn, and troops marched to capture the ferry across the East River to the city, with minimal resistance: the governor at the time, Peter Stuyvesant, was unpopular with the residents of the city. Articles of Capitulation 1664 were drawn up, the Dutch West India Company's colors were struck on September 8, 1664, and the soldiers of the garrison marched to the East River for the trip home to the Netherlands. The date of 1664 appeared on New York City's corporate seal until 1975, when the date was changed to 1625 to reflect the year of Dutch incorporation as a city and to incidentally allow New York to celebrate its 350th anniversary just 11 years after its 300th.
The English renamed the colony New York, after the king's brother James, Duke of York and on June 12, 1665, appointed Thomas Willett the first of the mayors of New York. The city grew northward, remaining the largest and most important city in the colony of New York.
See also[edit]
History of New York City (1665–1783)
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Stevenson W. Fletcher, Pennsylvania Agriculture and Country Life 1640–1840 (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1950), 2, 35–37, 63–65, 124.
Jump up ^ Day, Gordon M. “The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern Forests.” Ecology, Vol. 34, #2 (April): 329–346. New England and New York Areas 1580–1800. Notes that the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) tribe in New Jersey and the Massachuset tribe in Massachusetts used fire in ecosystems.1953
Jump up ^ Russell, Emily W.B. Vegetational Change in Northern New Jersey Since 1500 A.D.: A Palynological, Vegetational and Historical Synthesis Ph.D. dissertation. New Brunswick, PA: Rutgers University. Author notes on page 8 that Indians often augmented lightning fires. 1979
Jump up ^ Russell, Emily W.B. "Indian Set Fires in the Forests of the Northeastern United States." Ecology, Vol. 64, #1 (Feb): 78 88. 1983a Author found no strong evidence that Indians purposely burned large areas, but they did burn small areas near their habitation sites. Noted that the Lenna Lenape Tribe used fire.
Jump up ^ A Brief Description of New York, Formerly Called New Netherlands with the Places Thereunto Adjoining, Likewise a Brief Relation of the Customs of the Indians There, New York, NY: William Gowans. 1670. Reprinted in 1937 by the Facsimile Text Society, Columbia University Press, New York. Notes that the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) tribe in New Jersey used fire in ecosystems.
Jump up ^ Smithsonian Institution—Handbook of North American Indians series: Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 15—Northeast. Bruce G. Trigger (volume editor). Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. 1978 References to Indian burning for the Eastern Algonquians, Virginia Algonquians, Northern Iroquois, Huron, Mahican, and Delaware Tribes and peoples.
Jump up ^ Mark Kurlansky, 2006[page needed]
Jump up ^ Dreibelbis, 1978[page needed]
Jump up ^ Burrows, Edwin G.; Wallace, Mike (1998). Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199729104.
Jump up ^ Koussa, Nicolas (12 April 2016). "Quand New York s'appelait Angoulême : une conférence le 21 avril" (in French). French Morning. Retrieved 12 April 2016.
Jump up ^ Paumgarten, Nick (2009-08-31). "Useless Beauty: What is to be done with Governors Island?". The New Yorker (LXXXV, No 26 ed.). p. 56. ISSN 0028-792X. Retrieved 18 August 2017.
Jump up ^ Letter of Pieter Schaghen (not Peter Schaghen) from Dutch National Archive, The Hague, with transcription Archived October 23, 2010, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ "Journal of New Netherland 1647. Written in the Years 1641, 1642, 1643, 1644, 1645, and 1646". World Digital Library. 1641–1647. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
Jump up ^ Ellis, Edward Robb (1966). The Epic of New York City. Old Town Books. pp. 37–40.
References[edit]
Bridenbaugh, Carl. Cities in the Wilderness-The First Century of Urban Life in America 1625-1742 (1938) online edition
Morison, Samuel Eliot (1972) [1965]. "From the Hudson to the James 1626–1675: 1. New Netherland and New York". The Oxford History of the American People: Prehistory to 1789. New York: New American Library.
Hunter, Douglas (2009). Half Moon: Henry Hudson and the Voyage That Redrew the Map of the New World. New York: Bloomsbury Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-1-59691-680-7. HENRY HUDSON'S PRECISE WHEREABOUTS in his first week in the vicinity of present-day New York have long caused debate and disagreement. A major challenge in deciphering the events of the Half Moon voyage is the fact that the geographic tableau has changed enormously in four centuries
Further reading[edit]
Jackson, Kenneth T. and David S. Dunbar, eds. Empire City: New York Through the Centuries (2005), 1015 pages of excerpts excerpt
Stokes, I.N. Phelps. The Iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498-1909 compiled from original sources and illustrated by photo-intaglio reproductions of important maps plans views and documents in public and private collections (6 vols., 1915–28). A highly detailed, heavily illustrated chronology of Manhattan and New York City. see The Iconography of Manhattan Island All volumes are on line free at:
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 1. 1915 v. 1. The period of discovery (1524-1609); the Dutch period (1609-1664). The English period (1664-1763). The Revolutionary period (1763-1783). Period of adjustment and reconstruction; New York as the state and federal capital (1783-1811)
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 2. 1916 v. 2. Cartography: an essay on the development of knowledge regarding the geography of the east coast of North America; Manhattan Island and its environs on early maps and charts / by F.C. Wieder and I.N. Phelps Stokes. The Manatus maps. The Castello plan. The Dutch grants. Early New York newspapers (1725-1811). Plan of Manhattan Island in 1908
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 3. 1918 v. 3. The War of 1812 (1812-1815). Period of invention, prosperity, and progress (1815-1841). Period of industrial and educational development (1842-1860). The Civil War (1861-1865); period of political and social development (1865-1876). The modern city and island (1876-1909)
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 4. 1922; v. 4. The period of discovery (565-1626); the Dutch period (1626-1664). The English period (1664-1763). The Revolutionary period, part I (1763-1776)
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 5. 1926; v. 5. The Revolutionary period, part II (1776-1783). Period of adjustment and reconstruction New York as the state and federal capital (1783-1811). The War of 1812 (1812-1815) ; period of invention, prosperity, and progress (1815-1841). Period of industrial and educational development (1842-1860). The Civil War (1861-1865) ; Period of political and social development (1865-1876). The modern city and island (1876-1909)
I.N. Phelps Stokes; The Iconography of Manhattan Island Vol 6. 1928; v. 6. Chronology: addenda. Original grants and farms. Bibliography. Index.
External links[edit]
New York and its origins. Legend and Reality (about the Walloon contributions to the founding of New York City)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_New_York_City_(prehistory–1664)&oldid=810672312"
Categories:
History of New York City
Pre-statehood history of New York (state)
New Netherland
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from December 2013
CS1 French-language sources (fr)
Webarchive template wayback links
Use mdy dates from June 2013
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 16 November 2017, at 18:48.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: th

value: tr

value: td

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/Slash_and_burn
mw-redirect
Slash and burn

values:
/wiki/Five_Boroughs
mw-redirect
Five Boroughs

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
/wiki/Brooklyn,_New_York
mw-redirect
Brooklyn, New York

values:
/wiki/Harlem,_Manhattan
mw-redirect
Harlem, Manhattan

values:
/wiki/Flushing,_New_York
mw-redirect
Flushing, New York

values:
/wiki/Flushing,_Netherlands
mw-redirect
Flushing, Netherlands

values:
/wiki/Staten_Island,_New_York
mw-redirect
Staten Island, New York

values:
/wiki/States-General_of_the_Netherlands
mw-redirect
States-General of the Netherlands

values:
/wiki/Pavonia_Massacre
mw-redirect
Pavonia Massacre

values:
/wiki/Glacial_moraines
mw-redirect
Glacial moraines

values:
/wiki/Collect_Pond,_Manhattan
mw-redirect
Collect Pond, Manhattan

values:
/wiki/Manhattan_schist
mw-redirect
Manhattan schist

values:
/wiki/Gravesend,_New_York
mw-redirect
Gravesend, New York

values: Articles of Capitulation 1664 (page does not exist)

values: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (December 2013)

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/0028-792X

values:
nofollow
http://www.wdl.org/en/item/4060/
external text

values:
/wiki/Bloomsbury_Press
mw-redirect
Bloomsbury Press

values: Category:Pre-statehood history of New York (state)

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from December 2013

values: Category:CS1 French-language sources (fr)

values: Category:Webarchive template wayback links

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-History_of_New_York_City_prehistory–1664 rootpage-History_of_New_York_City_prehistory–1664 skin-vector action-view


text:
Procedures of the Supreme Court of the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is part of the series on the
United States
Supreme Court
The Court
Decisions
Procedure
History
Court Building
Current membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Retired Associate Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter
All members
List of all justices
by court
by seat
by time in office
by education
List of Chief Justices
List of Associate Justices
Specialty lists
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations late in presidency
Court demographics
Justices who served in Congress
Ideological leanings of justices
Court functionaries
Clerks
Reporter of Decisions
Marshal of the Court
Supreme Court Police
Other countries
Law Portal
v
t
e
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court in the United States and the only court specifically established by the Constitution of the United States, implemented in 1789.
This article is concerned with the process and procedures used by the modern court. For general discussion of the court's jurisdiction and composition, see Supreme Court of the United States; for discussion of the court's present and historical accommodations, see United States Supreme Court building; for discussion of the history of the court, see History of the Supreme Court of the United States.
Contents
[hide]
1 Terms and sittings
2 The Court's authority to hear cases
2.1 Appellate jurisdiction
2.2 Original jurisdiction
3 Selection of cases
4 Hearing cases
4.1 Filing briefs
4.2 Oral arguments
5 Forming opinions
5.1 The conference: assignment of opinions
5.2 Circulating draft opinions and changing of views
5.2.1 Tied votes and lack of quorum
5.3 Announcement of opinions
6 Reporting and citation of cases
7 See also
8 Footnotes and references
9 External links
Terms and sittings[edit]
A term of the Supreme Court commences on the first Monday of each October, and continues until June or early July of the following year. Each term consists of alternating periods of approximately two weeks known as "sittings" and "recesses." Justices hear cases and deliver rulings during sittings; they discuss cases and write opinions during recesses.
The Court's authority to hear cases[edit]
Appellate jurisdiction[edit]
In nearly all of the cases heard by the Supreme Court, the Court exercises the appellate jurisdiction granted it by Article III of the Constitution. This authority permits the Court to review—and affirm or overturn—decisions made by lower courts and tribunals. Procedures for bringing cases before the Supreme Court have changed significantly over time. Today, cases are brought before the Supreme Court by one of several methods, of which the first two account for the overwhelming majority of cases decided:
By petition for a writ of certiorari, filed by a party to a case that has been decided by one of the United States courts of appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.
By petition for writ of certiorari with respect to a decision of one of the territorial or state courts, after all state appeals have been exhausted, where an issue of federal constitutional or statutory law is in question. The writ is usually issued to a state supreme court (including high courts of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa), but is occasionally issued to a state's intermediate appellate court for cases where the state supreme court denied certiorari or review and thereby refused to hear the appeal.
By petition for certiorari before judgment, which permits the Court to expedite a case pending before a United States court of appeals by accepting the case for review before the appellate court has decided it. However, Supreme Court Rule 11 provides that a case may be taken by the Court before judgment in a lower court "only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court."
By appeal from certain decisions of United States district courts in certain cases involving redistricting of congressional or state legislative districts, or when specifically authorized in a particular statute.
By a certified question or proposition of law from one of the United States Courts of Appeals, meaning that the Court of Appeals requests the Supreme Court to instruct it on how to decide the case. This procedure was once common but is now rarely invoked; the last certificate accepted for review was in 1981.
By petition for an "extraordinary writ" such as mandamus, prohibition, or habeas corpus. These writs are rarely granted by the Supreme Court though they are more frequently granted by lower courts.
Original jurisdiction[edit]
Certain cases that have not been considered by a lower court may be heard by the Supreme Court in the first instance under what is termed original jurisdiction. The Supreme Court's authority in this respect is also derived from Article III of the Constitution, which states that the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." The original jurisdiction of the Court is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1251. This statute provides further that, in the case of disputes between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction and no lower court may hear such cases.
The number of original jurisdiction cases heard by the court is small; generally only one or two such cases are heard per term. Because the nine-member Supreme Court is not well-suited to conducting pretrial proceedings or trials, original jurisdiction cases accepted by the Court are typically referred to a well-qualified lawyer or lower-court judge to serve as special master, conduct the proceedings, and report recommendations to the Court. The Court then considers whether to accept the special master's report or whether to sustain any exceptions filed to the report.
Although jury trials are in theory possible in the Court's original jurisdiction cases, there has not been one since Georgia v. Brailsford in 1794.[1] In 1950, in the case United States v. Louisiana, the state of Louisiana moved for a jury trial, but the Court denied the motion, ruling that the suit was an equity action and not an action at law, and that therefore the Seventh Amendment guarantee of a jury trial did not apply. If a matter involving an action at law did come before the court, however, a jury would likely be empaneled and would hear the case alongside the justices of the Court.[2]
Selection of cases[edit]
Since the Judiciary Act of 1925 ("The Certiorari Act" in some texts), the majority of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction has been discretionary.[3] Each year, the court receives approximately 9,000–10,000 petitions for certiorari, of which less than 1% (approximately 80–100), are granted plenary review with oral arguments, and an additional 50 to 60 are disposed of without plenary review.[4][5]
The Court strictly enforces its requirements for the preparation and timely filing of certiorari petitions, in order to manage such a massive caseload. This occasionally results in harsh consequences, as Justice Thomas acknowledged in a 2007 opinion: "Just a few months ago, the Clerk, pursuant to this Court’s Rule 13.2, refused to accept a petition for certiorari submitted by Ryan Heath Dickson because it had been filed one day late ... Dickson was executed on April 26, 2007, without any Member of this Court having even seen his petition for certiorari. The rejected certiorari petition was Dickson’s first in this Court, and one can only speculate as to whether denial of that petition would have been a foregone conclusion."[6]
In theory, each Justice's clerks write a brief for the Justice outlining the questions presented, and offering a recommendation as to whether certiorari should be granted; in practice, most Justices (all of the current court, except Justices Alito and Gorsuch) have their clerks participate in the cert pool.[7][8][9]
During the Justices' regular conference, the Justices discuss the petitions, and grant certiorari in less than five percent of the cases filed. (During the 1980s and 1990s, the number of cases accepted and decided each term approached 150 per year; more recently, the number of cases granted has averaged well under 100 annually). Before each conference, the Chief Justice prepares a list of those petitions he believes have sufficient merit to warrant discussion. Any other Justice may also add a case to the "discuss list"; cases not designated for discussion by any Justice are automatically denied review. The Court or a Justice may also decide that a case be "re-listed" for discussion at a later conference; this occurs, for example, where the Court decides to request input from the Solicitor General of the United States on whether a petition should be granted.[10]
The votes of four Justices at Conference (see Rule of four) will suffice to grant certiorari and place the case on the court's calendar. If the Supreme Court grants certiorari (or the certified question or other extraordinary writ), then a briefing schedule is arranged for the parties to submit their briefs in favor of or against a particular form of relief. During this time, an individual or group having an interest in a case but not a party to the case may submit a motion to appear before the court as amicus curiae ("friend of the court"). Except for certain specific categories (such as lawyers for state and local governments) or where all parties to the case consent, it is in the Court's discretion whether such motions are granted.
The grant or denial of certiorari petitions by the Court are usually issued as one-sentence orders without explanation.
Cases that fall within the Court's original jurisdiction are initiated by filing a complaint directly with the Supreme Court, and normally are assigned to a special master appointed by the Court for the taking of evidence and making recommendations, after which the Court may accept briefs and hear oral arguments as in an appellate case.
Hearing cases[edit]
Filing briefs[edit]
Before oral arguments, the parties to a case file legal briefs outlining their arguments. An amicus curiae may also submit a brief in support of a particular outcome in the case if the Court grants it permission. Formal rules govern every aspect of these briefs; Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the rules thus:
The rules direct what information must be included in a brief, describe the size of paper and type of print, and limit the number of pages. Even the colors of the covers of the briefs are specified: the petitioner's brief must have a blue cover and the respondent's must have a red cover. The Court also often receives briefs from amici curiae (friends of the Court) in particular cases, and these must have a green cover. This color-coding comes in very handy when you have a stack of eight or ten briefs in a particular case and can locate the brief you want by its color without having to read the covers of each.[11]
Oral arguments[edit]
Thereafter, if the Court chooses to hold a hearing, each side has thirty minutes to present its case orally. In exceptional and controversial cases, however, the time limit may be extended. In the Court's early years, attorneys might argue a single case for hours or even days; but as the judicial workload increased, the time available for argument has been restricted. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist was noted for his especially strict enforcement of the argument time limits.
To file pleadings or to argue a case, an attorney must be a member of the bar of the Court. (The primary requirement for admission to the Bar is that the attorney must have been admitted to practice in the highest court of a state or territory for at least the past three years.) Justices are allowed to interrupt the attorney speaking in order to ask him or her questions, and particularly since the arrival of Justice Antonin Scalia in 1986, do so often.[12]
The Court began recording Oral Arguments in October 1955.[13] Beginning in October 2010, the Supreme Court began the practice of posting recordings and transcripts of the oral arguments made during the preceding week on Fridays on the Court's website.
In an interview for C-SPAN, former Justice Scalia, speaking for himself, noted that by the time the Justices hear oral arguments, having read the submissions by the parties and amici, it is "very rare, though not unheard of", for the discussion during the oral arguments to change his view of a case in which he has already made up his mind based on the submissions and his research about the case. However, he also made the point that it is "quite common" for him to go into Oral Arguments with his mind not made up yet, as the cases are usually very hard and difficult, and that in those situations a persuasive attorney can make the difference for him.[14]
Forming opinions[edit]
The conference: assignment of opinions[edit]
At the end of a week in which the Court has heard oral arguments, the Justices hold a conference to discuss the cases and vote on any new petitions of certiorari. The Justices discuss the points of law at issue in the cases. No clerks are permitted to be present, which would make it exceedingly difficult for a justice without a firm grasp of the matters at hand to participate.[15] At this conference, each justice—in order from most to least senior—states the basis on which he or she would decide the case, and a preliminary vote is taken.
Former Justice Scalia professed frustration that there is little substantive discussion,[16] while former Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote that this makes the conference more efficient.[17] The votes are tallied, and the responsibility for writing the opinion in the case is assigned to one of the justices; the most senior Justice voting in the majority (but always the Chief Justice if he is in the majority) makes the assignment, and can assign the responsibility to him- or herself.
Circulating draft opinions and changing of views[edit]
The justice writing the opinion for the court will produce and circulate a draft opinion to the other justices. Each justice's law clerks may be involved in this phase. In modern Supreme Court history only a few justices, such as former Justice Antonin Scalia, have regularly written their own first drafts.[18] Once the draft opinion has been reviewed, the remaining Justices may recommend changes to the opinion. Whether these changes are accommodated depends on the legal philosophy of the drafters as well as on how strong a majority the opinion garnered at conference. A justice may instead simply join the opinion at that point without comment.
Votes at conference are preliminary; while opinions are being circulated, it is not unheard of for a justice to change sides. A justice may be swayed by the persuasiveness (or lack thereof) of the opinion or dissent, or as a result of reflection and discussion on the points of law at issue.
The evolution of the justices' views during the circulation of draft opinions can change the outcome of the case; an opinion that begins as a majority opinion can become a dissenting opinion, and vice versa. At the conference for Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy is said to have initially voted with Chief Justice Rehnquist, but then changed his mind, feeling unable to join Rehnquist's draft opinion.[19] While working for the Justice Department, present-day Chief Justice John Roberts—a former Rehnquist law clerk—wrote an analysis of Wallace v. Jaffree[20] in which he indicated his belief (based on the length and structure) that Rehnquist's dissent had started out as an opinion for the court, but lost its majority; similar speculation is often heard of Justice O'Connor's dissent in Kelo v. New London.[21] Justice Kennedy is known within the Court for changing his mind subsequent to the conference, and Justice Thomas is known for having the tendency to lose a majority.[22] Justices may change sides at any time prior to the handing down of the Court's opinion. Generally, the Court's decision is the opinion which a majority (five or more) of justices have joined. In rare instances, the Court will issue a plurality opinion in which four or fewer Justices agree on one opinion, but the others are so fractured that they cannot agree on a position. In this circumstance, in order to determine what the decision is lawyers and judges will analyze the opinions to determine on which points a majority agrees. An example of a case decided by a plurality opinion is Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
A justice voting with the majority may write a concurring opinion; this is an opinion where the justice agrees with the majority holding itself, but where he or she wishes to express views on the legal elements of the case that are not encompassed in the majority opinion. Justices who do not agree with the decision made by the majority may also submit dissenting opinions, which may give alternative legal viewpoints. Dissenting opinions carry no legal weight or precedent, but they can set the argument for future cases. John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson set down for the majority opinion later in Brown v. Board of Education.
After granting a writ of certiorari and accepting a case for review, the justices may decide against further review of the case. For example, the Court may feel the case presented during oral arguments did not present the constitutional issues in a clear-cut way, and that adjudication of these issues is better deferred until a suitable case comes before the court. In this event the writ of certiorari is "dismissed as improvidently granted" (DIG)—saying, in effect that the Court should not have accepted the case. As with the granting or denial of cert, this dismissal is customarily made using a simple per curiam decision without explanation.[23]
Customarily, justices who were not seated at the time oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court do not participate in the formulation of an opinion. Likewise, a justice leaving the Court prior to the handing down of an opinion does not take part in the Court's opinion. Should the composition of the Court materially affect the outcome of a pending case, the justices will likely elect to reschedule the case for rehearing.
Tied votes and lack of quorum[edit]
If not all of the nine justices vote on a case, or the Court has a vacancy, then a tied vote is possible. If this occurs, then the decision of the court below is affirmed, but the case is not considered to be binding precedent. The effect is a return to the status quo ante. No opinions (or voting alignments) are issued in such a case, only the one-sentence announcement that "[t]he judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." Omega S.A. v. Costco Wholesale Corp. is an example of such a case. The court tries to avoid such rulings when possible: After the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 three cases would have ended with a tie. All cases were reargued to allow the newly appointed Samuel Alito to cast a decisive vote.
A quorum of justices to hear and decide a case is six. If, through recusals or vacancies, fewer than six justices can participate in a case, and a majority of qualified justices determines that the case cannot be heard in the next term, then the decision of the court below is affirmed as if the Court had been equally divided on the case. An exception exists when this situation arises in one of the now-rare cases brought directly to the Supreme Court on appeal from a United States District Court; in this situation, the case is referred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the corresponding circuit for a final decision there by either the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, or a panel consisting of the three most senior active circuit judges.[24]
Announcement of opinions[edit]
Throughout the term, but mostly during the last months of the term—May, June, and, if necessary, July—the Court announces its opinions. The decision of the Court is subsequently published, first as a slip opinion, and subsequently in the United States Reports. In recent years, opinions have been available on the Supreme Court's website and other legal websites on the morning they are announced. Since recording devices have been banned inside the courtroom, the fastest way for decisions of landmark cases to reach the press is through the Running of the Interns.[25]
The opinion of the Court is usually signed by the author; occasionally, the Supreme Court may issue an unsigned opinion per curiam. The practice of issuing a single opinion of the Court was initiated during the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall during the early 19th century. This custom replaced the previous practice under which each Justice, whether in the majority or the minority, issued a separate opinion. The older practice is still followed by appellate courts in many common law jurisdictions outside the United States.
Reporting and citation of cases[edit]
For more specific details on how cases are cited, see case citation.
Supreme Court decisions are typically cited as in the following example: "Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)." The court citation consists of the names of the opposing parties; the volume number; "U.S." (signifying United States Reports, the official reporter of Supreme Court decisions); the page number on which the decision begins; and the year in which the case was decided. The names of the opposing parties are listed in the format "Petitioner v. Respondent" or "Appellant v. Appellee." The Reporter of Decisions is responsible for publication of the Court's rulings. Two other widely used citation formats exist: the Supreme Court Reporter and the Lawyers' Edition, corresponding to two privately published collections of decisions. Citations to cases in the Supreme Court Reporter would be structured as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 64 S. Ct. 397 (1944). Citations to cases in the Lawyers' Edition would be as follows: Snowden v. Hughes, 88 L. Ed. 497 (1944). Judicial opinions often use the citation from all three sources (the United States Reports, Supreme Court Reporter, and Lawyers' Edition), as seen here: Martin v. Texas, 200 U.S. 316, 26 S. Ct. 338, 50 L. Ed. 497 (1906). Since the 1930s, prior to publication of the decisions in these reporters, they are available from the United States Law Week (U.S.L.W.). In more recent years, opinions have been available electronically soon after they appeared on commercial sites such as Lexis or Westlaw, on Internet sites such as FindLaw and on the Court's own website.[26]
The Reporter of Decisions is the court official responsible for the publication of the Court's opinions and orders. The current Reporter of Decisions is Christine Luchok Fallon.
Decisions of the Supreme Court are precedents that bind all lower courts, both federal and state. The Supreme Court generally respects its own precedents, but has in some cases overturned them.
See also[edit]
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
Footnotes and references[edit]
Jump up ^ Georgia v. Brailsford, Powell & Hopton , 3 U.S. 1 (1794).
Jump up ^ United States v. Louisiana , 399 U.S. 699 (1950).
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin. "Originalism: The Lesser Evil". University of Cincinnati Law Review. 57: 849, 850. Archived from the original on February 21, 2006; Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Lazarus, Edward (June 14, 1998). "Closed Chambers". Booknotes (Interview). Interview with Brian Lamb. C-SPAN.
Jump up ^ "The Justices' Caseload" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States.
Jump up ^ Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205 (2007).
Jump up ^ Mauro, Tony (October 21, 2005). "Roberts Dips Toe Into Cert Pool". Law.com. Regarding the picking of cases, see generally, Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 224–238. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (September 25, 2008). "A Second Justice Opts Out of a Longtime Custom: The 'Cert. Pool'". The New York Times. Retrieved October 17, 2008.
Jump up ^ Liptak, Adam (May 1, 2017). "Gorsuch, in sign of independence, is out of Supreme Court's clerical pool". New York Times. Retrieved May 2, 2017.
Jump up ^ Thompson, David C.; Wachtell, Melanie F. (2009). "An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures". George Mason University Law Review. 16 (2): 237, 241. SSRN 1377522  .
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (September 27, 2001). Remarks by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (Speech). Lecture at the Faculty of Law of the University of Guanajuato, Mexico; cf. "Part VII. Practice and Procedure. Rule 33. Document Preparation: Booklet Format; 8 1/2- by 11-Inch Paper Format". Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. April 19, 2013 – via Legal Information Institute, Cornell University.
Jump up ^ Talbot, Margaret (March 28, 2005). "Supreme Confidence: The Jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 3, 2005 – via New America Foundation. In his early years on the Court, Scalia's exuberant questioning was not well received by his colleagues ... In Scalia's first oral argument he asked so many questions that Powell whispered, 'Do you think he knows that the rest of us are here?' The other Justices have since caught up with Scalia. Now all of them—with the exception of Clarence Thomas—are garrulous Linder, Doug. "Justices Brennan & Scalia Debate Creation-Science". On a bench lined with solemn gray figures who often sat as silently as pigeons on a railing, Scalia stood out like a talking parrot.
Jump up ^ "About the Oyez Project". Oyez Project. Retrieved January 24, 2011.
Jump up ^ Scalia, Antonin (June 19, 2009). "Justice Antonin Scalia" (PDF) (Interview). Interview with Susan Swain. C-SPAN. Retrieved November 6, 2010. [I]t is probably quite rare, although not unheard of, that oral argument will change my mind. But it is quite common that I go in with my mind not made up. I mean a lot of these cases are very close, and you go in on the knife's edge. Persuasive counsel can make the difference. There are things you can do with oral argument that cannot be done in a brief. You can convey the relative importance of your various points.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. p. 253. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 285. ISBN 9780143035275. to call our discussion of a case a conference is really something of a misnomer. It's much more a statement of the views of each of the nine justices.
Jump up ^ Rehnquist, William H. (2001). The Supreme Court (2nd ed.). New York: Knopf. pp. 254–58. ISBN 9780375409431.
Jump up ^ Lazarus, Edward (2005). Closed Chambers. New York: Penguin. p. 271. ISBN 9780143035275.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Zimmerman, Carol (March 18, 2004). "Justice Blackmun's Papers Reveal Near Overturn of Roe". Catholic Herald. Catholic News Service. Archived from the original on April 19, 2004.
Jump up ^ Roberts, memo to Fred F. Fielding, June 4, 1985.
Jump up ^ See, e.g., Claeys, Eric (June 24, 2005). "Did O'Connor Lose the Majority?". SCOTUSblog. Archived from the original on August 22, 2006.
Jump up ^ See Tushnet, Mark V. (2005). A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law. New York: Norton. ISBN 9780393058680.
Jump up ^ Savage, David G. (January 2002). "Adarand Didn't Add Up: Lawyers Now Wonder Which Affirmative Action Case Court Will Take". ABA Journal. American Bar Association. 88: 26. Retrieved January 5, 2013.
Jump up ^ U.S.C. Title 28, Section 1; U.S.C. Title 28, Section 2109.
Jump up ^ Kessler, Robert. "Why Aren't Cameras Allowed at the Supreme Court Again?". The Atlantic. Retrieved 24 March 2017.
Jump up ^ "Opinions". Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 25 October 2014.
External links[edit]
Court Rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2010 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rules from the U.S. Supreme Court website
2013 rule revisions from the U.S. Supreme Court website (with "clerk comments" that clarify what's changing for 2013 and why)
[hide]
v
t
e
Supreme Court of the United States
The Court
Lists of cases
Procedures
Supreme Court Building
Court demographics
Ideological leanings
Appointment and confirmation
Current members
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch
Retired Justices
John Paul Stevens
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter
Current nominations
No vacancies
History
Jay Court (1789–1795)
Rutledge Court (1795)
Ellsworth Court (1796–1800)
Marshall Court (1801–1835)
Taney Court (1836–1864)
Chase Court (1864–1873)
Waite Court (1874–1888]
Fuller Court (1888–1910)
White Court (1910–1921)
Taft Court (1921–1930)
Hughes Court (1930–1941)
Stone Court (1941–1946)
Vinson Court (1946–1953)
Warren Court (1953–1969)
Burger Court (1969–1986)
Rehnquist Court (1986–2005)
Roberts Court (2005–present)
Lists of justices
and nominees
Chief justices
Associate justices
All justices
court
seat
education
time in office
timelines
Justices who served in Congress
All nominations
Unsuccessful nominations
Nominations near end of presidency
Statutes affecting
Court size
Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1801
Judiciary Act of 1802
Seventh Circuit Act of 1807
Eighth and Ninth Circuits Act of 1837
Tenth Circuit Act of 1863
Judicial Circuits Act of 1866
Judiciary Act of 1869
Court functionaries
Clerk
Marshal
Supreme Court Police
Reporter of Decisions
Lists of law clerks
Chief Justice
Seat 1
Seat 2
Seat 3
Seat 4
Seat 6
Seat 8
Seat 9
Seat 10
All
Former locations
Old City Hall, Philadelphia
Old Supreme Court Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Old Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol
Related
United States Solicitor General
United States Reports
Lawyers' Edition
Amicus curiae
Article III, U.S. Constitution
Original jurisdiction
Burial places of justices
The Court in fiction
Other countries
Law Portal
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States&oldid=827586021"
Categories:
United States procedural law
Supreme Court of the United States
United States appellate procedure
Hidden categories:
Use mdy dates from May 2014
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 25 February 2018, at 16:06.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: img

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg

attrs: href class

attrs: class style

values: Lists of United States Supreme Court cases

value: li

values: Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
plainlist
padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;text-align:left

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by court composition

values: List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States by seat

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office

values: List of law schools attended by United States Supreme Court Justices

values: List of nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Unsuccessful nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of people nominated to U.S. Supreme Court in last year of presidency

values: Demographics of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of United States Supreme Court Justices who also served in Congress

values: Ideological leanings of U.S. Supreme Court justices

values: Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Reporter of Decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Marshal of the United States Supreme Court

values: padding:0.3em 0.4em 0.3em;font-weight:bold;border-top: thin solid #aaa

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%

values:
/wiki/United_States_federal_courts
mw-redirect
United States federal courts

values:
/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States
mw-redirect
Constitution of the United States

values: Edit section: The Court's authority to hear cases

values: Article Three of the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Writ_of_certiorari
mw-redirect
Writ of certiorari

values: United States v. Louisiana (1950) (page does not exist)

values: Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution

values:
/wiki/Amici_curiae
mw-redirect
Amici curiae

values: Edit section: The conference: assignment of opinions

values: Edit section: Circulating draft opinions and changing of views

values:
/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London
mw-redirect
Kelo v. New London

values: Edit section: Tied votes and lack of quorum

values:
/wiki/Slip_opinion
mw-redirect
Slip opinion

values: Edit section: Reporting and citation of cases

values: Supreme Court of the United States Reporter of Decisions

values:
/wiki/Supreme_Court_Reporter
mw-redirect
Supreme Court Reporter

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1377522

attrs: alt src title width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.oyez.org/about

values: Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States

values:
navbox-image
10
width:1px;padding:0px 0px 0px 2px

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Chief Justice)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 1)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 2)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 3)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 4)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 6)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 8)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 9)

values: List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States (Seat 10)

values: Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: List of burial places of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

values: Supreme Court of the United States in fiction

values: nowraplinks collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Supreme Court of the United States

values: Category:United States appellate procedure

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States rootpage-Procedures_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States skin-vector action-view