Amicus = “friend,” curiae = “court.” Thus, amicus curiae means “friend of the court.” As for the filing party, it must be a [presumably interested] third party. The two involved parties do not file “amicus” briefs: they file merit briefs (and responses). In order to file an amicus brief, the amici (person or organization seeking to file a brief) must either obtain approval of the parties or of the court. Generally speaking, these interested parties tend to be organizations on one side or the other. In a firearms case, for example, you’ll generally see the Brady Center on one side, and the NRA on the other.

All of the other answers are incorrect for the above reasons.

This is a straightforward question, no tricks or gimmicks. It also requires relatively little explanation, due to its directness, but we’ll go through what each of the barriers is/what it means.

Mootness: This means, essentially, that no matter what the Supreme Court decides, the particular outcome will not change. For example, there was a question of mootness in Roe v. Wade (by the time the case was decided, she already gave birth). Thus, some argued that the case was moot, because no matter what the court decided, Roe could not abort the child (it was already born). The Court reasoned, however, that Roe could become pregnant again, thus the case was not moot. A better example is a case involving racial discrimination and acceptance to, say, law school. By the time the case reaches the Supreme Court, it is likely that the student has been accepted to a different law school, and graduated. Thus his case is likely moot.

Ripeness: This is the opposite of mootness. The Supreme Court will not decide a case that is not yet ripe. In other words, the case has not proceeded far enough along in terms of the litigation stream to allow the court to render a decision.

Standing: This is, arguably, one of the more important barriers to entry. Standing refers to a particularized entity being “injured” (not necessarily physically) by the particular statute at hand. Take, for example, several of the plaintiffs in Heller v. DC. Originally, there were multiple plaintiffs in the case, however, Anthony Heller was the only plaintiff who had applied for a handgun permit, and been denied. The other several plaintiffs attempted to assert that they considered applying, but were too scared/didn’t for whatever reason. The other plaintiffs failed to suffer a redressable injury—they had not been denied of anything! Thus they lacked standing.

Political Question(s): This is probably the most interesting and nebulous one. Essentially, the Court will not render decisions that are better left to the other two branches to decide. A classic example (although now unfortunately no longer applicable) is that of the political division of states into voting units (redistricting). Frankfurter (a Supreme Court justice) wrote a majority opinion in Colgrove v. Green in which the Supreme Court refused to decide a case re: redistricting, saying that the Court “ought not to enter into this political thicket.” 328 U.S. 549, 556 (1946). Frankfurter believed that redistricting was a question better left in the capable hands of the state legislature. 

Again, relatively straightforward question. There are technically additional opinions, like plurality opinions, but these three are the most common.

Majority: A majority opinion, by definition, is written on behalf of the majority of the court (so at least  voting members). Majority opinions set “precedent”—a rule of law that lower courts must follow, and that the issuing court owes deference to under the doctrine of stare decisis. Moreover, majority opinions decide who “wins” the case.

Dissenting: A dissenting opinion, by contrast, is written on behalf of a justice or justices that disagree with the majority opinion. Dissenting opinions disagree with the outcome—that is who “won” and, often, how they won. Dissenting opinions are NOT precedential, that is, they do not set a rule of law that must be followed.

Concurrence: A concurring opinion is a somewhat broad term, but most often is used to refer to a justice or justices who agree with the outcome (that is who “won”) but would advocate a different way (rule of law) to get there. Similarly to dissenting opinions, concurrences are NOT precedential.

Once a case reaches the Supreme Court, the evidence from the lower court trials is no longer used to determine if the judgment was correct or incorrect. The Supreme Court simply determines if the outcome of a case violates the constitution or not. If they determine it to be constitutional, then the decision stands. Therefore, the correct answer is false.

In the American legal system, there are two basic types of court cases: criminal law cases and civil law cases. This is true regardless of the level of court involved – whether the case is tried in the local, state, or federal court systems. Criminal law cases are those in which an individual(s) is charged with violating a specific law, thus rendering themselves open to punishment (typically a fine or a jail term). Civil law cases involve a conflict between two groups, which can arise over a variety of issues, such as a breach of contract, child custody arrangements, or property damage. In turn, civil law is further comprised of two sub-elements: statutes (laws issued by legislative bodies) and common law (a compendium of decisions reached over time by judiciary bodies about legal affairs).

There are certain standards which every case must meet in order to be successfully brought before any type of court; it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply be a relevant litigant or to have an accredited lawyer. First, the litigant in question (aka the plaintiff) must have standing – this is defined as a legitimate interest which the plaintiff has at stake. Usually, this legitimate interest stems from a serious injury which the plaintiff has either directly suffered or has reason to fear is immediately and likely pending. This injury must have been caused by another individual or group (such as a company or business). In recent years, both Congress and the Supreme Court have loosened the rules that determine standing, so that it has become easier for a plaintiff to legitimately challenge an entity in court, especially large corporations or even the government itself. Secondly, the matter of contention which the plaintiff wants to bring before the court must be a justiciable dispute – an issue which is able to be assessed and solved through legal means. In order for a conflict to be justiciable, there must be an appropriately relevant law(s) that can be considered and/or applied.

In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases which come before the Supreme Court involve appellate jurisdiction – aka the authority to hear cases that have been appealed from lower courts. In matters of appellate jurisdiction, the justices may only review pertinent legal issues, not the facts of the case itself (for example, the justices can decide whether a law was properly defined or applied to a case, but not the question of an individual plaintiff’s guilt). On the contrary, original jurisdiction applies in whichever court first handles a case (typically a trial is also involved). Courts with original jurisdiction must figure out the facts of a case, creating a record and determining whether the case is criminal or civil in nature. The Supreme Court does have original jurisdiction as well, but rarely is called upon to exercise it (when applied, it usually involves cases concerning foreign diplomats or contention between a state and the federal government).

Most Supreme Court cases are decided according to the principle of stare decisis – this practice (which is Latin for “let the decision stand”) upholds the ruling of a lower court. Every Supreme Court ruling is decided by majority vote, with at least six justices required to be preside over a case, and any precedent(s) set by a ruling must receive consent from at least five of the justices. When a case has been decided, justices may write and issue their own concurring opinions, either explaining their support for the ruling or justifying their support based on a different or additional legal reasoning than that used by their fellow justices. Any justice who disagrees is free to write a dissenting opinion, explaining their reasons for objecting to all or part of the majority’s ruling. Like all other federal courts, the Supreme Court depends heavily on precedents set by past cases; for example, if a case before the Court involves interpretation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, the Court will rely quite deeply on past interpretations and past rulings on this Clause in order to decide their current case.

This is an interesting question, and one that was recently rendered more relevant (Justice Scalia’s untimely death created a vacancy on the court). Both of the answers reading “the lower court decision is affirmed” and “the decision does not create binding precedent” are correct. Many of you are probably wondering about the likelihood of this happening, given the fact that we have 9 Justices, which, mathematically, renders impossible a tie. That, of course, is true, however it overlooks four possibilities: (1) A Justice may die on the bench (e.g. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia); (2) a Justice may resign; (3) a Justice may be impeached; (4) a Justice may have to recuse himself. Any of these four possibilities will render a vacancy on the bench and thus create the possibility of a 4-4 split. You should be familiar with the concepts in 1-3, but you may not know what recusal is (and that’s completely fine!). Broadly, recusal is when justice (or a judge) must remove herself from presiding over a particular case because of some kind of conflict of interest. The specifics are beyond the scope of your course. 

This should have been an easy question. If the Supreme Court declines to hear a case—which is the rule, rather than the exception—the ruling of the lower court stands. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court hears only 1% (on average) of the cases requesting cert, the courts of appeals are the often the ultimate authority on the matter.