Federal Judicial Center
        
              
        Search tips
Search

          HomeAbout the FJCStatuteThe FJC and What It DoesAnnual ReportsBoard MembersSenior StaffJob VacanciesContact UsResearch About the CourtsReports & StudiesManuals, Monographs & GuidesResearch ProjectsCardone Recommendation StudyFederal Rules MaterialsFederal Court Cases: FJC Integrated Database (IDB)Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990OverviewDocumentsPublicationsLegislationSpecial Topics1980 Hague Convention on International Child Abduction: A Resource for JudgesOverviewRecent CasesSources of Law and InterpretationCase CommentariesSample OrdersArticles and CommentaryFAQsVideo TutorialsChecklistCovid-19 and the Federal Judiciary: Research ResourcesOverviewMaps and DashboardsResearch ReportsTopical WebpagesElection LitigationOverviewCase Studies in Emergency Election LitigationLitigation SubjectsRegistration ProceduresNullifying RegistrationsDistrict LinesFilling VacanciesGetting on the BallotRecall ElectionsBallot MeasuresCampaign ActivitiesElection DatesAbsentee and Early VotingVoter IdentificationPoll HoursVoting ProceduresPolling Place ActivitiesProvisional BallotsVoting IrregularitiesRecountsInteractive Map of Emergency Election CasesFJC Publications on Election LitigationElection Law BibliographyCovid-19Federal and State Court CooperationOverviewTopics for Cooperation Between State and Federal CourtsReducing BiasWhat Is Bias and How Is It Measured?Effectiveness of Implicit Bias TrainingsReducing Bias ReferencesBankruptcy EducationState–Federal Judicial CouncilsExamples of State–Federal Court CooperationSample FormsAdditional ResourcesIllustrative Forms of Class Action NoticesOverviewSecurities NoticesProducts Liability NoticesEmployment Discrimination NoticesNotice Checklist and Plain Language GuideNotes for Use by Attorneys and JudgesOverview of MethodologyDetailed Discussion of MethodologyAcknowledgmentsManaging Capital CasesOverviewManaging Federal Death Penalty TrialsIntroductionResource Guide, Volume IOrders and FormsFederal Death Penalty Resource Counsel AssistanceManaging Habeas Corpus Review of Capital ConvictionsResource Guide, Volume IICapital Defense Network AssistanceAdditional ResourcesNational Security CasesOverviewPublicationsSelected Orders and Other Case DocumentsRelated FJC ResourcesForeign Intelligence Surveillance CourtRules of Practice and ProcedureOverviewVideo TutorialsGuidesResearch ReportsPrint PublicationsOnline-Only Research ReportsScience ResourcesOverviewFingerprint IdentificationNeuroscienceOpioids CrisisDNA TechnologiesWater and the LawTechnology in LitigationOverviewPublicationsThird-Party Litigation FinancingOverviewPublications and ReportsLocal Rules and FormsState LawsIndustry StandardsEducation for the CourtsEducation ProgramsPrograms and Resources for JudgesPrograms and Resources for Court AttorneysPrograms and Resources for Federal DefendersPrograms and Resources for ExecutivesPrograms and Resources for Supervisors and ManagersPrograms and Resources for Experienced Probation and Pretrial Services OfficersPrograms and Resources for All Court EmployeesPrograms and Resources for TrainersCivic Education About the CourtsTalking Points on Judicial HistoryFamous Federal TrialsState and Federal CourtsInside the Federal CourtsManuals, Monographs, & GuidesVideos & PodcastsHistory of the Federal JudiciaryJudgesBiographical Directory of Article III Federal JudgesBankruptcy JudgeshipsMagistrate JudgeshipsDiversity on the BenchJudicial SalariesUnsuccessful Nominations and Recess AppointmentsImpeachments of Federal JudgesJudgeship ReassignmentsCourtsSupreme Court of the United StatesU.S. Courts of AppealsU.S. District CourtsU.S. Circuit Courts, 1789-1911Other Federal CourtsCourts: A Brief OverviewWork of the CourtsCaseloadsThe Contempt Power of the Federal CourtsJurisdictionThe Role of the U.S. Courts of Appeals in the Federal JudiciaryRulesJudicial BranchAdministrative BodiesCongress and the CourtsExecutive Branch and the CourtsCourt Officers and StaffFederal Judicial CircuitsTalking Points on Federal Judicial HistoryCourthousesGalleryDetailed ListList by StateCasesCases that Shaped the Federal CourtsFamous Federal TrialsExhibitsTimelinesGraphs: DemographicsGraphs: CaseloadsMapsNotable Federal TrialsSnapshots of Federal Judicial History, 1790-1990Spotlight on Judicial HistoryThe Justices' Circuit Court OpinionsFor Further StudyCourt History ProgramsGuide to ResearchJudges' Published PapersOral History ResourcesPublished Court HistoriesScholarship on JudgesInternational OfficeAbout IOHistoryInternational ProgramsGlobal ReachBriefing MaterialsTranslated MaterialsContact UsPublications Catalog You are here HomeHistory of the Federal Judiciary  Supreme Court of the United States: Jurisdiction **Selected Developments in the History of Supreme Court Jurisdiction** **ORIGINAL JURISDICTION****Date**
**Name/Citation**
**Summary**September 24, 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
			1 Stat. 80
Exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, citizens of another state, or aliensOriginal but not exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits between a state and citizens of another state or aliensExclusive jurisdiction over suits against ambassadors, public ministers, and their domestics or domestic servantsOriginal but not exclusive jurisdiction over suits brought by ambassadors and public ministers, or to which a consul or vice-consul is a partyFebruary 7, 1795
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XI
Abolished jurisdiction over suits against a state by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of a foreign stateMarch 3, 1890
*Hans v. Louisiana*
			134 U.S. 1 (1890)
Interpreted the Eleventh Amendment to bar suits against a state by its own citizensJune 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 927
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, replacing the provision for exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits where a state is a party with a provision for exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more statesAmended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between the United States and a stateAmended the Judiciary Act of 1789, replacing the provision for original but not exclusive jurisdiction over civil suits between a state and citizens of another state or aliens with a provision for original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all actions or proceedings by a state against citizens of another state or aliensSeptember 30, 1978
Diplomatic Relations Act
			92 Stat. 810
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, eliminating exclusive jurisdiction over suits against ambassadors, public ministers, and their domestics or domestic servants, by providing for original but not exclusive jurisdiction over all actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice-consuls of foreign states are parties  **APPELLATE JURISDICTION****From the Highest Court of a State****Date**
**Name/Citation**
**Summary**September 24, 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
			1 Stat. 85
Writ of error in cases in which a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United States is ruled invalidWrit of error in cases in which a statute or authority exercised under any state is challenged as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and is ruled validWrit of error in cases in which a decision is made against a title, right, privilege, or exemption claimed under the Constitution or a treaty, statute, or commission of the United StatesDecember 23, 1914
Judiciary Act of 1914
			38 Stat. 790
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for writ of certiorari in cases in which a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United States is ruled validAmended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for writ of certiorari in cases in which a statute or authority exercised under any state is challenged as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and is ruled invalidAmended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for writ of certiorari in cases in which a decision is made in favor of a title, right, privilege, or exemption claimed under the Constitution or a treaty, statute, commission, or authority of the United StatesSeptember 6, 1916
Judiciary Act of 1916
			39 Stat. 726
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, converting from writ of error to writ of certiorari cases in which a decision is made against a title, right, privilege, or exemption claimed under the Constitution or a treaty, statute, commission, or authority of the United StatesFebruary 17, 1922
42 Stat. 366
Added a provision for writ of error where a decision is made against a claim, brought before final judgment in the case, that a change in the rule of law or the construction of a statute applicable to a contract would violate the ConstitutionFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 937
Added a provision for writ of certiorari in cases in which a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United States is ruled invalid [writ of error still available in such cases]Added a provision for writ of certiorari in cases in which a statute or authority exercised under any state is challenged as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and is ruled valid [writ of error still available in such cases]January 31, 1928
45 Stat. 54
Abolished the writ of error and made all relief previously available by writ of error obtainable by appealJuly 29, 1970
District of Columbia Court Reform and Criminal Procedure Act
			84 Stat. 590
Defined the highest court of a state as including the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, established by the actJune 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Abolished the right of appeal from state courts and made cases previously reviewable on appeal reviewable upon writ of certiorari**From the U.S. Circuit Courts and U.S. District Courts**September 24, 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
			1 Stat. 84
Writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in civil actions and suits in equity brought there originally, removed from a state court, or appealed from a U.S. district court where the matter in dispute exceeds $2,000February 13, 1801
Judiciary Act of 1801
			2 Stat. 99
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, abolishing writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in suits in equityAmended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for appeal from the U.S. circuit courts in cases of equity, admiralty, maritime, and prize or no prize, where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000March 8, 1802
Repeal Act of 1802
			2 Stat. 132
Repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 [thereby reverting to the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789]April 29, 1802
Judiciary Act of 1802
			2 Stat. 159
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for legal issues upon which the judges of a U.S. circuit court are divided to be certified to the Supreme Court for decisionMarch 3, 1803
Judiciary Act of 1803
			2 Stat. 244
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1789, adding a provision for appeal from the U.S. circuit courts in cases of equity, admiralty, maritime, and prize or no prize, where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 [writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in civil actions still available pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789]July 4, 1840
5 Stat. 393
Added a provision for writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in all cases carried there by writ of error from the U.S. district courts [writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in civil actions appealed there from the U.S. district courts still available pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789]March 3, 1863
Habeas Corpus Act of 1863
			12 Stat. 757
Added a provision for writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts from final judgment in any suit or prosecution (arising from an arrest, imprisonment, or other act done under the authority of the United States during the Civil War) brought in a state court and removed to a U.S. circuit court pursuant to the actJune 30, 1864
13 Stat. 310
Amended the Judiciary Act of 1803, providing for direct appeal to the Supreme Court from a U.S. district court in prize cases where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 or the district judge has certified that the case involves a question of general importancePrize causes pending in the U.S. circuit courts may be transferred to the Supreme Court upon the application of all parties in interest where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 or the district judge has certified that the case involves a question of general importanceApril 9, 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1866
			14 Stat. 29
Provided for appeal on any question of law in cases arising under the act.January 25, 1869
*The Alicia*
			74 U.S. 571 (1869)
Ruled the provision of the 1864 statute allowing the transfer of prize cases from the U.S. circuit courts to the Supreme Court unconstitutional in cases where no decree has been entered, on the grounds that the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction in prize casesJune 1, 1872
Practice Conformity Act
			17 Stat. 196
Added a provision for appeal from the U.S. circuit courts where, after final judgment, the judges have certified their disagreement with one another on a legal issue which could have been reviewed before judgment on a certificate of division of opinion pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1802February 16, 1875
18 Stat. 315
Appeal from the U.S. circuit courts in admiralty and maritime cases extends only to questions of law and rulings of the court, and not to issues of fact decided by the juryAmended all applicable statutes, raising the matter in controversy requirement for Supreme Court review from $2,000 to $5,000March 3, 1875
Jurisdiction and Removal Act
			18 Stat. 472
Added a provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of an order of a U.S. circuit court disposing of a case by dismissal or remand to state court on the basis of a lack of federal jurisdiction or the fraudulent joinder of partiesFebruary 4, 1887
Interstate Commerce Act
			24 Stat. 385
Added a provision for appeal from the U.S. circuit courts in suits brought by the Interstate Commerce Commission, or any interested company or person, to enforce orders of the Commission where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000February 6, 1889
25 Stat. 656
Added a provision for writ of error to any court of the United States in a case of conviction of a crime for which the punishment is deathFebruary 25, 1889
25 Stat. 693
Added a provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. circuit courts where the jurisdiction of the court is in question, but in cases where the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000, only the question of jurisdiction shall be reviewedMarch 3, 1891
Circuit Court of Appeals Act (Evarts Act)
			26 Stat. 827
Repealed the portion of the act of February 16, 1875, raising the matter in controversy requirement for Supreme Court review, where applicable, from $2,000 to $5,000Amended existing statutes providing for writ of error to the U.S. circuit courts in civil cases by providing for review, by appeal or writ of error, of the following cases in the U.S. circuit courts:Cases in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court for decisionFinal sentences and decrees in prize causesCases of conviction of a capital or other infamous crimeCases involving the construction or application of the ConstitutionCases in which the constitutionality of a federal law, or the validity or construction of a treaty, are at issueCases in which the constitution or law of a state is alleged to be repugnant to the ConstitutionJanuary 20, 1897
29 Stat. 492
Amended the Evarts Act of 1891, repealing the provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of convictions in the U.S. circuit courts of infamous crimes not capitalMarch 3, 1899
Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act
			30 Stat. 1154
Added a provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of criminal cases in the U.S. district and U.S. circuit courts brought under the act for obstruction of navigable waterwaysFebruary 11, 1903
Expediting Act
			32 Stat. 823
In any suit in equity brought by the United States under the Sherman Act of 1890, the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, or future acts with a similar purpose, if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance, the case shall be expedited and heard by a three-judge U.S. circuit court, and the circuit judges, if divided in opinion, shall certify the case to the Supreme Court for reviewIn every suit in equity brought by the United States under the above-mentioned acts, appeal from a final judgment of a U.S. circuit court shall be only to the Supreme CourtFebruary 19, 1903
Elkins Act
			32 Stat. 849
Applied the Expediting Act of 1903 to all suits brought under the act at the direction of the Attorney General in the name of the Interstate Commerce CommissionJune 29, 1906
Hepburn Act
			34 Stat. 592
Amended the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887, eliminating the $2,000 matter in controversy requirement for appeals from the U.S. circuit courts in cases brought to enforce orders of the Interstate Commerce CommissionApplied the Expediting Act of 1903 to all suits against the Commission to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend an order, as well as to any proceedings in equity to enforce an order of the Commission or a provision of the Interstate Commerce Act; required the Attorney General, in all such suits, to file the certificate provided for in the Expediting ActMarch 2, 1907
Criminal Appeals Act
			34 Stat. 1246
Added a provision for writ of error to the U.S. circuit and U.S. district courts, on behalf of the United States, in criminal cases, in the following instances:A decision quashing an indictment based on the invalidity or construction of the statute on which it is basedA decision arresting a judgment of conviction for insufficiency of the indictment based on the invalidity or construction of the statute on which it is basedA decision sustaining a special plea in bar when the defendant has not been put in jeopardyJune 18, 1910
Commerce Court Act
			36 Stat. 539
Established the Commerce Court and transferred jurisdiction to it over suits to enforce orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission and suits to enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend such orders [the provisions of the Expediting Act of 1903 remained in effect, where applicable, for suits in equity brought by the United States under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887]June 18, 1910
Three-Judge Court Act
			36 Stat. 557
Added a provision for three-judge courts to hear suits for injunctions restraining state officers from enforcing state statutes alleged to be unconstitutional, and for appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of such a three-judge court granting or denying an interlocutory injunctionJune 25, 1910
36 Stat. 854
Repealed the portion of the Expediting Act of 1903 providing for certification of a case to the Supreme Court where the circuit judges are divided in opinionMarch 3, 1911
Judicial Code of 1911
			36 Stat. 1157, 1167
Abolished the U.S. circuit courts effective January 1, 1912, transferring their jurisdiction to the U.S. district courtsRepealed the provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of convictions in the U.S. district courts for capital crimesMarch 4, 1913
37 Stat. 1013
Amended the Three-Judge Court Act of 1910 to include suits for injunctions restraining state officers from enforcing orders of a state administrative board or commission alleged to be unconstitutionalOctober 22, 1913
Urgent Deficiencies Act
			38 Stat. 220
Abolished the Commerce Court, transferred its jurisdiction to the U.S. district courts, and provided for three-judge U.S. district courts to hear suits for injunctions restraining the enforcement of orders of the Interstate Commerce CommissionProvided for direct appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying an interlocutory injunction restraining the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission as well as from a final judgement in any suit brought under the actSeptember 7, 1916
Shipping Act
			39 Stat. 738
Provided that procedures in suits to enforce, suspend, or set aside orders of the U.S. Shipping Board, created by the act, would be the same as those in similar suits regarding orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission [see Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913]June 10, 1920
Federal Power Act
			41 Stat. 1074
Provided that the enforcement power of the Federal Power Commission, created by the act, would be governed by the same procedures as provided in the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, and that companies subject to regulation would have the same rights of hearing, defense, and review as in cases brought under that act [see Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913]August 15, 1921
Packers and Stockyards Act
			42 Stat. 168
Provided that the jurisdiction, powers and duties of the Secretary of Agriculture in enforcing the act would be subject to the same laws applicable to suspending or restraining orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission [see Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913]February 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 938
Provided for direct review of interlocutory orders and final judgments of the U.S. district courts pursuant to the relevant provisions of the following five statutes, and no others:The Expediting Act of 1903The Criminal Appeals Act of 1907The Three-Judge Court Act of 1910, as amended by the act of March 4, 1913 [the 1925 act further amended this act to provide for appeal from the grant or denial of a permanent injunction]The Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913The Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921[Although not listed in the 1925 act, the direct review provisions of the Shipping Act of 1916 and the Federal Power Act of 1920 remained in effect]January 31, 1928
45 Stat. 54
Abolished the writ of error and made all relief previously available by writ of error obtainable by appealJune 10, 1930
Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act
			46 Stat. 535
Provided that the orders of the Secretary of Agriculture in enforcing the act would be subject to the same laws governing the suspension or restraining of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission [see Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913]June 19, 1934
Communications Act
			48 Stat. 1093
Provided that the Expediting Act of 1903 would apply to suits in equity brought by the United States under the actProvided that suits to enforce, enjoin, set aside, annul or suspend orders of the Federal Communications Commission, created by the act, would be subject to the laws regarding enforcing or setting aside orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission [see Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913]August 26, 1935
49 Stat. 860
Amended the Federal Power Act of 1920 to provide for review of orders of the Federal Power Commission in the U.S. courts of appeals, thereby eliminating the provisions for three-judge U.S. district courts and direct appeal to the Supreme Court in such casesMay 21, 1936
49 Stat. 1369
Authorized appeal to the Supreme Court of orders and decrees of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in *U.S. v. Northern Pacific Railway Co., et al*August 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalAdded a provision for three-judge U.S. district courts to hear suits to enjoin the enforcement of an act of Congress on the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and provided for appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying an interlocutory or permanent injunctionJune 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 928, 989, 995
Provided for direct appeal to Supreme Court from a U.S. district court in any case required to be heard by a three-judge courtAmended the direct appeal provision of the Expediting Act of 1903 by replacing “suit in equity” with “civil action” [the three-judge court provision of the act was so amended in 1942]Repealed the provision for direct appeal to Supreme Court from U.S. district courts in criminal cases brought under the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 [this provision was deemed implicitly repealed by the act of 1925, which did not include it among the provisions for direct review from the U.S. district courts]December 29, 1950
Administrative Orders Review Act
			64 Stat. 1129
Provided for review in the U.S. courts of appeals of administrative orders under the Shipping Act of 1916, as amended by the Intercoastal Shipping Act of 1933, the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, and the Communications Act of 1934, thereby eliminating the provisions for three-judge U.S. district courts and direct appeal to the Supreme Court in such cases [the act made no change to the provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913 regarding orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission]July 2, 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Provided for certain cases brought under the act by the Attorney General to be heard by three-judge district courts with direct appeal to the Supreme Court.August 6, 1965
Voting Rights Act of 1965
Provided for certain cases brought under the act by the Attorney General or by a state or political subdivision seeking a declaratory judgment to be heard by three-judge district courts with direct appeal to the Supreme Court.January 2, 1971
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970
			84 Stat. 1890
Repealed the provision of the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907 for direct appeal to Supreme Court from the U.S. district courts in certain criminal casesDecember 21, 1974
Antitrust Procedures and Penalty Act
			88 Stat. 1709
Amended the Expediting Act of 1903 as follows:Eliminated the act’s applicability to suits brought under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 [limiting the act to cases brought under the Sherman Act of 1890 and other acts of a similar purpose]Repealed the provision for three-judge U.S. district courtsLimited direct appeal to the Supreme Court to cases where the district judge certifies that immediate review is of general public importance in the administration of justiceJanuary 2, 1975
88 Stat. 1918
Repealed the provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913 for three-judge U.S. district courts and direct appeal to the Supreme Court in suits challenging orders of the Interstate Commerce CommissionAugust 12, 1976
90 Stat. 1119
Repealed the provisions of the Three-Judge Court Act of 1910, as amended, and the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937, as amended, for three-judge U.S. district courts in suits for injunctions against enforcement of a state statute or an act of Congress, respectivelyProvided for three-judge U.S. district courts in suits challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment of congressional districts or of any statewide legislative bodyJune 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Repealed the provision of the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 for direct appeal in cases where an act of Congress is held unconstitutional**From the U.S. Courts of Appeals**March 3, 1891
Circuit Court of Appeals Act (Evarts Act)
			26 Stat. 828
In cases based on diversity of citizenship, patent laws, revenue laws, criminal laws, or admiralty, the judgments of the U.S. courts of appeals, created by the act, are final; subject to the following provisions:The courts of appeals may certify legal questions to the Supreme Court upon which the Supreme Court may issue instructions or require that the entire controversy be sent up for its review and decisionIn the same categories of cases, the Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari requiring the case to be sent up for its review and decisionIn all cases not hereinbefore made final in a U.S. court of appeals, there shall be a right of review in the Supreme Court, by appeal or writ of error, where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000March 3, 1911
Judicial Code of 1911
			36 Stat. 1134
Amended the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891 by adding copyright cases to those made final in the U.S. courts of appealsSeptember 6, 1916
Judiciary Act of 1916
			39 Stat. 727
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. courts of appeals brought under the Railroad Safety Appliance Act of 1893, the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the Hours of Service Act of 1907, and the Federal Employers’ Liability Act of 1908, making such cases reviewable only upon a writ of certiorariFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 938
Amended the provisions for review by the Supreme Court of cases in the U.S. courts of appeals by providing as follows:In any case, civil or criminal, a U.S. court of appeals may certify a question of law to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court may give binding instructions on the question or require the entire matter to be sent up for its reviewIn any case, civil or criminal, the Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari to a U.S. court of appeals either before or after judgment in such courtIn any case where a state statute is held to be repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, the party relying on such statute shall be entitled to review in the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of errorNo review by the Supreme Court of a judgment or decree of a U.S. court of appeals shall be had other than as provided by this statuteJanuary 31, 1928
45 Stat. 54
Abolished the writ of error and made all relief previously available by writ of error obtainable by appealAugust 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalJune 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Repealed the portion of the Judiciary Act of 1925 providing for appeal in a case where a state statute is held to be repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United StatesRepealed the portion of the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 providing for appeal in cases where an act of Congress is held unconstitutional**In Bankruptcy Cases**March 2, 1867
Bankruptcy Act of 1867
			14 Stat. 520
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of bankruptcy cases in the U.S. circuit courts where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000June 7, 1878
20 Stat. 99
Repealed the Bankruptcy Act of 1867July 1, 1898
Bankruptcy Act of 1898 (Nelson Act)
			30 Stat. 553
Vested the Supreme Court with appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases in courts not within any organized circuit and in the Supreme Court of the District of ColumbiaReview, by appeal or writ of error, of bankruptcy cases in the U.S. courts of appeals where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 and the question is one which could have been taken from the highest court of a state to the Supreme CourtReview, by appeal or writ of error, of bankruptcy cases in the U.S. courts of appeals where a justice of the Supreme Court certifies that the determination of the question involved is essential to a uniform construction of the bankruptcy actControversies in bankruptcy cases in other federal courts may be certified to the Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court may issue writs of certiorari to other federal courts in bankruptcy casesSeptember 6, 1916
Judiciary Act of 1916
			39 Stat. 727
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. courts of appeals brought under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, making review in such cases available only upon a writ of certiorariJune 22, 1938
Bankruptcy Act of 1938 (Chandler Act)
			52 Stat. 855
Limited Supreme Court review of bankruptcy cases to judgements, decrees, and orders of the U.S. courts of appeals in accordance with the provisions of U.S. law now in force or hereinafter enacted**From the Commerce Court**June 18, 1910
Commerce Court Act
			36 Stat. 542
Appeal from a final decree or judgment of the Commerce Court, created by the actAppeal from an interlocutory order granting or continuing an injunction restraining enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce CommissionOctober 22, 1913
Urgent Deficiencies Act
			38 Stat. 219
Abolished the Commerce Court, effective December 31, 1913, and transferred its jurisdiction to the U.S. district courts**From the Court of Claims**March 3, 1863
Court of Claims Act of 1863
			12 Stat. 766
Appeal by either party where the matter in controversy exceeds $3,000Appeal by the United States in cases where the presiding judge certifies that a judgment or decree will affect a class of cases, furnish a precedent for the action of an executive department of the government with respect to a class of cases, or establish a precedent on a constitutional questionAppeal on questions of law by plaintiffs who have forfeited their judgments to the United States upon a finding by the Court of Claims that they have committed fraudMarch 9, 1865
*Gordon v. U.S.*
			69 U.S. 561 (1865)
Rejected Supreme Court jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Claims on the grounds that the court’s judgments were subject to review by the Secretary of the Treasury and therefore not final and enforceableMarch 17, 1866
14 Stat. 9
Repealed the authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to revise Court of Claims judgments and provided for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases previously decided under the 1863 actJune 25, 1868
15 Stat. 75
Provided for appeal of all Court of Claims judgments adverse to the United States, eliminating previous jurisdictional requirements for such appealsJuly 12, 1870
16 Stat. 235
Repealed the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over cases in which a successful claimant had received a presidential pardon arising from the Civil War, and provided that all such suits be dismissedJanuary 9, 1872
*U.S. v. Klein*
			80 U.S. 128 (1872)
Struck down as unconstitutional the portion of the 1870 statute repealing the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in certain casesFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 939
The Court of Claims may certify questions of law to the Supreme Court to obtain instructions for the proper disposition of the caseThe Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari to the Court of Claims in any caseNo review by the Supreme Court of a judgment or decree of the Court of Claims shall be had other than as provided by this statuteAugust 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalApril 2, 1982
Federal Courts Improvement Act
			96 Stat. 36
Abolished the Court of Claims**From the Court of Private Land Claims**March 3, 1891
Court of Private Land Claims Act
			26 Stat. 858
Appeal by the United States or a claimant from a final judgment of the Court of Private Land Claims, created by the act [the court was terminated in 1904]**From the Courts of the District of Columbia**February 27, 1801
District of Columbia Organic Act
			2 Stat. 106
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia where the matter in controversy exceeds $100April 2, 1816
3 Stat. 261
Amended the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 by raising the matter in controversy requirement for review of cases in the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia to $1,000Added a provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, where the matter in controversy exceeds $100 and is less than $1,000, where a justice of the Supreme Court has granted the petition of a party on the grounds that the case involves questions of law of such extensive interest and operation as to render final decision by the Supreme Court desirableMarch 3, 1863
12 Stat. 763, 764
Established the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and abolished the Circuit Court of the District of ColumbiaReview, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, as was provided by law with respect to the Circuit Court of the District of ColumbiaMarch 3, 1885
23 Stat. 443
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia where the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000; but the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to cases involving the validity of a patent or copyright, or the validity of a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United StatesFebruary 9, 1893
27 Stat. 434, 436
Established the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, which subsumed the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the District of ColumbiaReview, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, as was provided by law with respect to the Supreme Court of the District of ColumbiaMarch 3, 1897
29 Stat. 692
The Supreme Court may issue writs of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, as it may to the U.S. courts of appealsMarch 3, 1911
Judicial Code of 1911
			36 Stat. 1159
Amended the act of February 9, 1893, by providing for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia as follows:Cases in which the jurisdiction of the trial court is in issue; if the case as a whole is not otherwise reviewable, only the question of jurisdiction shall be certified to the Supreme CourtPrize casesCases involving the construction or application of the Constitution, the constitutionality of a federal law, or the validity or construction of a treatyCases in which the constitution or law of a state is alleged to be repugnant to the ConstitutionCases in which the validity of an authority exercised under the United States, or the existence or scope of any power or duty of an officer of the United States, is challengedCases in which the construction of a federal law is drawn in question by the defendantReview by writ of certiorari, or upon the certification of a legal question by the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, in cases arising under the patent laws, the copyright laws, the revenue laws, the criminal laws, and in admiralty casesApril 27, 1912
37 Stat. 94
Appeal from a final decree of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in cases regarding certain land claimsMarch 4, 1913
District of Columbia Public Utility Act
			37 Stat. 988
Appeal from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia in proceedings challenging orders of the Public Utilities Commission of the District of ColumbiaApril 9, 1923
*Keller v. Potomac Electric Co.*
			261 U.S. 428 (1923)
Held the jurisdiction conferred upon the Supreme Court by the District of Columbia Public Utility Act unconstitutional because it constituted a grant of legislative, rather than judicial, powerFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 938
Amended the provisions for review by the Supreme Court of cases in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia by providing as follows:In any case, civil or criminal, the court may certify a question of law to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court may give binding instructions on the question or require the entire matter to be sent up for its reviewIn any case, civil or criminal, the Supreme Court may issue a writ of certiorari to the court either before or after judgment in such courtIn any case where a state statute is held to be repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, the party relying on such statute shall be entitled to review in the Supreme Court by appeal or writ of errorNo review by the Supreme Court of a judgment or decree of the court shall be had other than as provided by this statuteAugust 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutional [included cases in both the District Court of the U.S. for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia]June 7, 1943
*U.S. v. Belt*
			319 U.S. 521 (1943)
Held that the act of 1912 conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in certain land cases had been implicitly repealed by the Judiciary Act of 1925, which provided for direct appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia exclusively in five instances, but did not include the 1912 statuteJune 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 870, 875
Made the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia equivalent to the U.S. district courts and U.S. courts of appeals, respectively**From the Emergency Court of Appeals**January 30, 1942
Emergency Price Control Act
			56 Stat. 32
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases brought under the actSeptember 8, 1950
Defense Production Act
			64 Stat. 809
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases brought under the actMarch 19, 1962
Order of Chief Judge Albert B. Maris
			299 F.2d 20
Abolished the Emergency Court of Appeals, effective April 18, 1962**In Habeas Corpus Proceedings**September 24, 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
			1 Stat. 82
Justices of the Supreme Court may issue writs of habeas corpus; the writ does not extend to prisoners in jail unless they are in custody under the authority of the United States, committed for trial before a federal court, or needed to testify in courtAugust 29, 1842
5 Stat. 539
Appeal from the U.S. circuit courts in habeas corpus proceedings where a citizen or subject of a foreign state is denied release from confinement for an act done under the alleged authority of such foreign stateFebruary 5, 1867
Habeas Corpus Act of 1867
			14 Stat. 386
Appeal from a final judgment of a U.S. circuit court in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the petitioner alleges that their detention violates the Constitution or federal lawMarch 27, 1868
15 Stat. 44
Repealed the portion of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 providing for appeal to the Supreme CourtOctober 25, 1869
*Ex parte Yerger*
			75 U.S. 85 (1869)
Ruled the Supreme Court retained appellate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases in the U.S. circuit courts pursuant to the Judiciary Act of 1789, notwithstanding the repeal of its appellate jurisdiction in cases brought under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867March 3, 1885
23 Stat. 437
Restored the portion of the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867 providing for appeal to the Supreme CourtMarch 10, 1908
35 Stat. 40
Limited appeals from federal court, where the detention complained of is by virtue of process issued by a state court, to cases in which the federal court or a justice of the Supreme Court certifies that probable cause for an appeal existsFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 940
Limited review of habeas corpus cases to those where a U.S. court of appeals certifies a question of law to the Supreme Court, or the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari to a U.S. court of appeals**From the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals**December 22, 1971
Economic Stabilization Act
			85 Stat. 750
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases brought under the actNovember 27, 1973
Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act
			87 Stat. 633
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases brought under the actDecember 22, 1974
Energy Policy and Conservation Act
			89 Stat. 963
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases brought under the actOctober 29, 1992
Federal Courts Administration Act
			106 Stat. 4507
Abolished the Temporary Emergency Court of Appeals, effective April 30, 1993**From the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (formerly U.S. Court of Military Appeals)**December 6, 1983
Military Justice Act
			97 Stat. 1406
Review, by writ of certiorari, of the following cases:Cases reviewed by the Court of Military Appeals in which a Court of Military Review has affirmed a sentence affecting a general or flag officer or extending to deathCases certified to the Court of Military Appeals by the Judge Advocate General after review by a Court of Military ReviewCases in which the Court of Military Appeals granted a petition for review after review by a Court of Military Review and a showing of good cause by the accusedCases other than those previously described in which the Court of Military Appeals granted relief**From the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (originally U.S. Court of Customs Appeals)**August 22, 1914
38 Stat. 703
Review, by writ of certiorari, of cases in which the construction of the Constitution or a treaty is at issue, or where the Attorney General has, before a decision is rendered, certified that the case is of such importance as to justify review by the Supreme CourtJune 17, 1930
Tariff Act
			46 Stat. 762
Review, by writ of certiorari, of all casesAugust 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalApril 2, 1982
Federal Courts Improvement Act
			96 Stat. 36
Abolished the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals**From the U.S. Court of International Trade**October 10, 1980
Customs Courts Act
			94 Stat. 1727
Reorganized the U.S. Customs Court as the U.S. Court of International Trade, thereby making the U.S. Court of International Trade subject to the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937, which provided for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalJune 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Repealed the provision of the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 for appeal in cases where an act of Congress is held unconstitutional**From the U.S. Customs Court**August 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Provided for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutionalOctober 10, 1980
Customs Courts Act
			94 Stat. 1727
Reorganized the U.S. Customs Court as the U.S. Court of International Trade**From the U.S. Territorial Courts****General Provisions**March 3, 1805
2 Stat. 338
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases concerning the United States in the superior courts of the territories in which no district court has been established [those courts having been vested with jurisdiction over such cases equal to that of the district court in Kentucky]April 7, 1874
Territorial Practice Act
			18 Stat. 27
The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over the territorial courts shall be exercised by writ of error where the trial was by jury and by appeal in all other casesMarch 3, 1885
23 Stat. 443
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme courts of the territories where the matter in controversy does not exceed $5,000; but the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to cases involving the validity of a patent or copyright, or the validity of a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United StatesMarch 3, 1891
Circuit Court of Appeals Act (Evarts Act)
			26 Stat. 828, 830
The statute made the decisions of the newly-created U.S. courts of appeals final (subject to certification to the Supreme Court of a question of law or the issuance by the Supreme Court of a writ of certiorari) in diversity of citizenship cases as well as cases based on patent, revenue, criminal, or admiralty laws, thereby precluding direct appeal from a territorial court to the Supreme Court in such casesAugust 24, 1937
Judiciary Reform Act
			50 Stat. 752
Added a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases to which the United States or a federal agency, officer, or employee is a party and in which an act of Congress has been ruled unconstitutional [included cases in all courts of record for Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico]June 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 928
Amended the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 to include the District Court for the Territory of Alaska, the U.S. District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, and the District Court of the Virgin IslandsOctober 31, 1951
65 Stat. 726
Amended the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 to include the District Court of Guam [the Organic Act of Guam, August 1, 1950, 64 Stat. 390, had enacted an equivalent provision]June 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Repealed the portion of the Judiciary Reform Act of 1937 providing for appeal to the Supreme Court in cases where an act of Congress is held unconstitutional**Alabama Territory**April 20, 1818
3 Stat. 468
Appeal from the general court of Alabama Territory in admiralty and maritime cases**Alaska Territory (originally District of Alaska)**May 17, 1884
First Organic Act for Alaska
			23 Stat. 26
Review of cases in the district court for Alaska as in other cases from the U.S. district courtsJuly 8, 1898
30 Stat. 728
Transferred to the Supreme Court cases originating in the district court for Alaska that were pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on or prior to December 30, 1897, where the Supreme Court would have had jurisdiction when the case was appealedJune 6, 1900
Second Organic Act for Alaska
			31 Stat. 414
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska Territory, as follows:Prize causesCases involving the construction or application of the ConstitutionCases in which the constitutionality of a federal law or the validity or construction of a treaty is in questionCases in which a state constitutional provision or law is alleged to be repugnant to the ConstitutionFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 941
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska Territory**Arizona Territory**February 24, 1863
Arizona Territory Organic Act
			12 Stat. 665
Extended to Arizona Territory laws applicable to New Mexico Territory [see New Mexico Territory, below]**Arkansas Territory**May 26, 1824
4 Stat. 53
Appeal from the superior court of Arkansas Territory in certain land cases**Colorado Territory**February 28, 1861
Colorado Territory Organic Act
			12 Stat. 174
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Colorado Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Dakota Territory**March 2, 1861
Dakota Territory Organic Act
			12 Stat. 242
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Dakota Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Florida Territory (including East and West Florida Territories)**March 3, 1823
3 Stat. 752
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the superior courts of the territories of East and West Florida where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000May 15, 1826
4 Stat. 165
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the court of appeals of Florida Territory in several categories, including suits to which the United States is a party and suits arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States**Hawaii Territory**March 3, 1909
35 Stat. 839
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the district court for the Territory of Hawaii as are so reviewable from the U.S. district and U.S. circuit courtsReview, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii where the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000March 3, 1911
Judicial Code of 1911
			36 Stat. 1158
Added a provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii where such review could be had from the highest court of a stateJanuary 28, 1915
38 Stat. 804
Repealed the provision for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii where the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000Added a provision for review, by writ of certiorari to the supreme court of the Territory of Hawaii, of all cases other than those in which review by appeal or writ of error is availableFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 936, 941
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for the Territory of HawaiiAbolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of the Territory of HawaiiJune 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 907
Included the U.S. District Court for the Territory of Hawaii within the general definition of the U.S. district courts, thereby including it within the provisions for direct review by the Supreme Court applicable to all U.S. district courts under the Judicial Code of 1948**Idaho Territory**March 3, 1863
Idaho Territory Organic Act
			12 Stat. 811
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Idaho Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpus**Indian Territory**March 1, 1889
25 Stat. 784
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. Court for the Indian Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000March 3, 1891
Circuit Court of Appeals Act (Evarts Act)
			26 Stat. 829
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. Court for the Indian Territory under the same regulations as apply to the U.S. district courts and U.S. circuit courts under the act**Iowa Territory**June 12, 1838
Iowa Territory Organic Act
			5 Stat. 238
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Iowa Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Kansas Territory**May 30, 1854
Kansas-Nebraska Act
			10 Stat. 287
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Kansas Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to matters involving title to slaves and that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpus**Michigan Territory**February 5, 1825
4 Stat. 81
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the highest court of Michigan Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Minnesota Territory**March 3, 1849
Minnesota Territory Organic Act
			9 Stat. 406
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Minnesota Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Montana Territory**May 26, 1864
Montana Territory Organic Act
			13 Stat. 89
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Montana Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpus**Nebraska Territory**May 30, 1854
Kansas-Nebraska Act
			10 Stat. 280
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Nebraska Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to matters involving title to slaves and that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpus**Nevada Territory**March 2, 1861
Nevada Territory Organic Act
			12 Stat. 212
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Nevada Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**New Mexico Territory**September 9, 1850
New Mexico Territory Organic Act
			9 Stat. 450
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of New Mexico Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to matters involving title to slaves and that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpus**Oklahoma Territory**May 2, 1890
Oklahoma Territory Organic Act
			26 Stat. 86
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Oklahoma Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000**Oregon Territory**August 14, 1848
Oregon Territory Organic Act
			9 Stat. 327
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Oregon Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 and in cases where the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty is brought into question**Orleans Territory**March 26, 1804
Territory of Orleans Organic Act
			2 Stat. 286
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Orleans [the statute vested the court with the same jurisdiction and powers as the district court in Kentucky, giving the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction by implication]**Philippines**July 1, 1902
Philippine Organic Act
			32 Stat. 695
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Supreme Court of the Philippines, as follows:Cases where the Constitution or any statute, treaty, title, right or privilege of the United States is involvedCases where the matter in controversy exceeds $25,000Cases where the title or possession of real estate exceeding $25,000 in value is in questionSeptember 6, 1916
Judiciary Act of 1916
			39 Stat. 727
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the Supreme Court of the Philippines after November 5, 1916; provided for review, by writ of certiorari, in cases where review was previously allowed by appeal or writ of errorFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 940
Removed cases where a “title, right or privilege of the United States” is involved from those in which a writ of certiorari may be issued to the Supreme Court of the PhilippinesJuly 4, 1946
Treaty of Manila
The United States relinquished sovereignty over the Philippines, ending the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction over the Supreme Court of the Philippines**Puerto Rico**April 12, 1900
Organic Act for Puerto Rico (Foraker Act)
			31 Stat. 85
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Puerto Rico and the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico where such review is available from the territorial supreme courts and where the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty is brought in question and the right claimed thereunder is deniedMarch 3, 1911
Judicial Code of 1911
			36 Stat. 1157
Amended the Organic Act for Puerto Rico of 1900 by providing for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Puerto Rico and the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico, as follows:Cases involving the validity of a copyrightCases involving the validity of a treaty, statute, or authority exercised under the United StatesCases in which the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty is brought in question and the right claimed thereunder is deniedAll other cases in which the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000January 28, 1915
38 Stat. 804
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico as are so reviewable in the U.S. district courtsRepealed previous provisions for review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Puerto Rico and provided for such review as is available in cases in the highest courts of the statesAdded a provision for review, by writ of certiorari to the supreme court of Puerto Rico, in all cases other than those in which review by appeal or writ of error is availableFebruary 13, 1925
Judiciary Act of 1925 (Judges’ Bill)
			43 Stat. 936, 941
Abolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the U.S. District Court for Puerto RicoAbolished review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Puerto RicoJune 25, 1948
Judicial Code of 1948
			62 Stat. 907, 928
Included the U.S. District Court for Puerto Rico within the general definition of the U.S. district courts, thereby including it within the provisions for direct review by the Supreme Court applicable to all U.S. district courts under the  Judicial Code of 1948August 30, 1961
75 Stat. 417
Review of cases in the supreme court of Puerto Rico, as follows:Appeal from decisions holding invalid a federal statute or treatyAppeal from decisions holding valid a Puerto Rico statute alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or federal lawReview, by writ of certiorari, in cases in which the validity of a federal statute or treaty is drawn in question; cases in which a Puerto Rico statute is alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or federal law; and cases in which a title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, statutes, treaties or a commission of the United StatesJune 27, 1988
Supreme Court Case Selections Act
			102 Stat. 662
Limited review of all cases in the supreme court of Puerto Rico to writ of certiorari**Utah Territory**September 9, 1850
Utah Territory Organic Act
			9 Stat. 455
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Utah Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000, except that the matter in controversy requirement shall not apply to matters involving title to slaves and that appeal or writ of error will be allowed from a decision of the territorial supreme court or district courts, or any judge thereof, on a petition for habeas corpusJune 23, 1874
Poland Act
			18 Stat. 254
Added provision for writ of error to the supreme court of Utah Territory in criminal cases where the accused is sentenced to death or convicted of bigamy or polygamy**Virgin Islands**December 28, 2012
126 Stat. 1606
Review, by writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the Virgin Islands, in the following cases:Cases in which the validity of a federal statute or treaty is drawn in questionCases in which a Virgin Islands statute is alleged to be repugnant to the Constitution or federal lawCases in which a title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, statutes, treaties or a commission of the United States**Washington Territory**March 2, 1853
Washington Territory Organic Act
			10 Stat. 176
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Washington Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $2,000 and in cases where the Constitution, a federal law, or a treaty is brought into question**Wisconsin Territory**April 20, 1836
Wisconsin Territory Organic Act
			5 Stat. 13
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Wisconsin Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000**Wyoming Territory**July 25, 1868
Wyoming Territory Organic Act
			15 Stat. 181
Review, by appeal or writ of error, of cases in the supreme court of Wyoming Territory where the matter in controversy exceeds $1,000
 Supreme Court Resources Overview
 Justices
 Chief Justices
 Legislative History
 
 Succession Chart
 Circuit Allotments
 Meeting Places
 Records
 Share Share this page
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle NE
Washington, DC 20002-8003
202-502-4000

Supreme Court of the United States  USCourts.gov  U.S. Sentencing Commission  Federal Judicial Center Foundation

*This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.*

The Federal Judicial Center produced and maintains this site in furtherance of its statutory mission. The Center regards the contents of this site to be responsible and valuable, but these contents do not reflect official policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. The site also contains links to relevant information on websites maintained by other organizations; providing these external links is for the convenience of this site's users and does not constitute verification or endorsement of the information or the sites to which the links are produced. Opinions expressed in the materials found on this site are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.
Site Map | Contact Webmaster | Privacy and Security Notice