about the group
appellate attorneys
docket reports
oral arguments
news on

Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts

by Kenneth S. Geller, John J. Sullivanand Alan E. Untereiner

Table of Sections

50.1 Scope Note.

50.2 Strategy and Objectives.

(a) The Unique Role of the Supreme Court and Its Consequences for Business and Commercial Litigation.

(b) Whether to Seek Review.

(c) Strategy at the Petition Stage.

(d) Strategy at the Merits Stage.

50.3 The Mechanics of Supreme Court Practice.

50.4 The Court's Jurisdiction to Review Decisions of Federal and State Courts.

(a) Jurisdiction to Review Decisions of the Courts of Appeals, District Courts, and Other Federal Courts.

(b) Jurisdiction to Review Decisions of State Courts.

(1) The Requirement of Finality.

(2) The Requirement of Decision by Highest State Court.

(3) The Requirement of a Substantial Federal Question.

(4) Independent and Adequate State Grounds for the Judgment.

50.5 Practice and Procedure on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

(a) Factors Guiding the Court in the Exercise of Its Certiorari Jurisdiction.

(1) Conflict in the Lower Courts over the Question Presented.

(2) Importance of the Issue Raised.

(3) Erroneous Decision Below.

(b) Briefing at the Petition Stage.

(1) Timing.

(2) Content of the Petition.

(3) Opposing Certiorari Review.

(4) Reply, Supplemental, and Amicus Briefs.

50.6 Briefing and Arguing Cases on the Merits.

(a) Merits Briefs.

(1) Timing and Form.

(2) Statement of the Case.

(3) Argument Section.

(4) Summary of Argument

(5) Supplemental and Amicus Briefs.

(b) Joint Appendix.

(c) Oral Argument.

(1) Preparation.

(2) Procedure and Etiquette.

(3) Content of Argument.

50.7 Petitions for Rehearing, Motions, and Applications.

(a) Petitions for Rehearing.

(b) Motions and Applications.

50.8 Procedural Checklists.

50.9 Forms.

(a) Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

(b) Brief for the Respondents in Opposition.

(c) Reply Brief at Certiorari Stage.

50.1 Scope Note

This chapter discusses the practice in, and summarizes the procedures of, the Supreme Court of the United States. There are generally two stages in any Supreme Court case. The Court first considers whether to review a decision issued by a lower federal or state court. The losing party below initiates the proceedings in the Supreme Court by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The prevailing party below is allowed to file a brief in opposition to the petition, which is often followed by a reply brief for the petitioner. The Court decides whether to grant the petition on the basis of the parties' briefs; no oral argument is held. If the Court decides to review the lower court's decision, then in the second stage of the proceedings the parties file briefs on the merits of the legal question(s) presented and the case is argued orally to the Court.

The focus of this chapter is on these two stages of Supreme Court review, with special emphasis on the legal and prudential constraints on the Court's certiorari jurisdiction, which drastically limit the number of business and commercial cases decided by the court each Term, and on the most effective strategies for briefing and arguing a case on the merits once the court has granted review. The chapter does not discuss in any detail the Court's limited appellate or original jurisdiction, which are seldomly invoked. A few collateral matters, such as applications for a stay (often an important consideration in high-stakes business or commercial litigation) and petitions for rehearing, are treated briefly.

back to top

50.2 Strategy and Objectives

* * *

(c) Strategy at the Petition Stage.

In petitioning for or opposing Supreme Court review, the key focus is not necessarily on the merits of the question raised i.e., which side is right but rather on whether the issue itself is so important that the Court should use its valuable time and limited resources to decide the issue now. The merits of the question presented will, of course, often figure in the calculus of why the issue is important, but are not the principal focus of the decision the Court is asked to make at the petition stage. Counsel often waste valuable pages of a certiorari petition presenting a partisan argument in favor of one side or the other of a question, when they should be trying to convince the Court that, no matter which side is correct, the issue important and subject to conflict or confusion in the lower courts. The inquiry at the petition stage is whether an issue is "certworthy." The fact that a federal court of appeals was right or wrong in deciding the issue is often irrelevant to the "certworthiness" inquiry.

It is important to bear these considerations in mind in formulating (or, as respondent, reformulating) the question presented for the certiorari petition. Imagine a Supreme Court opinion deciding the question presented. Does the opinion propound an important rule of federal law? If not and, in particular, if the opinion decides only a factbound issue of significance only to the parties then the question presented will need to be reformulated or the wisdom of seeking Supreme Court review will need to be reconsidered.

(d) Strategy at the Merits Stage

The selection, formulation, and presentation of arguments at the merits stage both in briefs and at oral argument often require difficult strategic judgments. To some extent, of course, these judgments closely resemble the decisions made in other litigation settings. But Supreme Court litigation also involves a number of factors that make it unusual or unique. For example, the Supreme Court generally does not place much weight on lower court decisions, unless they contain reasoning and analysis that is persuasive. In addition, the Supreme Court is always free to overrule (and often able to distinguish) its own previous decisions. For those reasons, arguments that rely significantly on precedent generally carry less weight in this forum. The Court is much freer than are the lower courts to resolve legal issues on the basis of what makes sense, regardless of past decisions. In addition, in many Supreme Court cases there is substantial evidence available of how individual Justices regard certain issues and methods of argumentation. Such information about the likely attitude of individual Justices is often critically important to the proper formulation and presentation of arguments.

back to top

back to Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts

© 2015. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.