Since the Judiciary Act of 1925, and especially since Congress eliminated most mandatory appeals in 1988, the Supreme Court has controlled its own docket. That makes the decision about which cases to hear one of the most consequential choices the justices make, and one made largely in private. A denial does not mean the Court agrees with the lower court. It simply leaves that ruling in place.
This guide explains the standards the Court uses, the litigants and lawyers who most often get through, the cases that are off-limits, and the special routes that skip the usual process.
A losing party asks for review by filing a petition for certiorari. About half of all petitions are filed by prisoners and others who cannot afford the filing fee, and very few of those are granted. Most petitions are screened by a pool of law clerks who write shared memos, and the Chief Justice circulates a discuss list of petitions worth talking about in conference. Petitions not on the list are denied without discussion. Four votes grant review, and the Court sometimes relists a petition several times or asks the Solicitor General for the government's views before deciding.
Under its original jurisdiction, the Court hears lawsuits between states, often over water rights or boundaries, usually appointing a special master to gather evidence. Cases decided by special three-judge district courts, including some redistricting and voting rights challenges, may be appealed directly. The Court can also grant certiorari before judgment, taking a case before the appeals court rules, and it decides emergency applications on its shadow docket, a route increasingly used for challenges to federal policies since 2025.
The United States is the most frequent and most successful petitioner. The Solicitor General files few petitions, chooses them carefully, and sees most of them granted. States, often through their attorneys general, are frequent litigants as well. A small group of experienced Supreme Court lawyers argues a large share of cases, and amicus briefs filed at the petition stage signal that an issue matters beyond the parties. Critics say this concentrates influence, while defenders say it improves the quality of argument.
Article III limits federal courts to actual cases and controversies. A plaintiff must have standing, meaning a concrete injury caused by the defendant that a court can remedy. A case that has become moot, because the dispute has ended, or that is not yet ripe will be dismissed. Under the political question doctrine, some issues are left to the elected branches, and in 2019 the Court held that partisan gerrymandering claims fall in that category. Congress can also limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction, though how far it may go is debated.
Rule 10 lists the main reasons for review: federal appeals courts disagree on the same legal question, a state supreme court has decided a federal question in a way that conflicts with other courts, or a lower court has decided an important federal question that the Court should settle or has departed from the Court's precedents. A clean vehicle matters as well, a case whose facts squarely present the issue without side problems. The Court usually avoids correcting mere errors in individual cases, though it sometimes summarily reverses a lower court without argument.
The shrinking docket has drawn attention. Some observers credit fewer circuit splits and fewer major federal laws, while others point to the justices' preferences and the rise of emergency rulings. Certain courts feed the docket heavily, including the Federal Circuit in patent cases and the D.C. Circuit in cases about federal agencies. Debates over judicial philosophy also shape what the Court chooses to take, since a willingness to revisit precedent invites petitions asking it to do so.
Follow a case from start to finish in how a Supreme Court case works, see where cases begin in the federal courts map, or explore the Court's fastest track in the shadow docket explained.