Question: what is the highest federal court of the United States. who decided the case of United States v. Payner,

Context paragraphs:
Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination: After his nomination on January 31, 2017, Neil Gorsuch was confirmed by the Senate on April 7, 2017.  Gorsuch, age 49, is the youngest sitting Supreme Court justice since Clarence Thomas.  In February 2016, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia died, leaving a vacancy on the highest federal court in the United States.  Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires the president to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, subject to the "advice and consent" of the United States Senate.  President Barack Obama, a Democrat, nominated Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy.  U.S. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican, arguing that the presidential election cycle having already commenced made the appointment of the next justice a political issue to be decided by voters, refused to bring the Garland nomination to the Senate floor for a vote.  McConnell's action held the Supreme Court vacancy open through the end of President Obama's tenure.

Hess v. Reynolds: Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73 (1885) , was Supreme Court case determining whether a probate case from Michigan should be moved to federal court and, if so, which federal court should hear it.  The court issued a writ of error on the judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan federal court for remanding a case back to the state court but determined that was indeed the appropriate federal court to hear the case.

United States v. Binion: United States v. Binion, 132 F. App'x 89 (8th Cir.  2005), is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit applied two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions ("United States v. Booker", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) and "United States v. Fanfan", 543 U.S. 220 (2005) in reviewing the sentencing decision by the trial court and upheld by the Federal District Court for the Eastern District.

United States v. Payner: United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion.  The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment.  By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.

Criminal law in the Waite Court: During the tenure of Morrison Waite as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (March 4, 1874 through March 23, 1888), the Supreme Court heard an unprecedented volume and frequency of criminal cases.  In just fourteen years, the Court heard 106 criminal cases, almost as many cases as the Supreme Court had heard in the period from its creation to the appointment of Waite as Chief Justice.  Notable cases include "United States v. Cruikshank" (1875), "United States v. Reese" (1875), "Reynolds v. United States" (1878), "Wilkerson v. Utah" (1879), the "Trade-Mark Cases" (1879), "Strauder v. West Virginia" (1880), "Pace v. Alabama" (1883), "United States v. Harris" (1883), "Ex parte Crow Dog" (1883), "Hurtado v. California" (1884), "Clawson v. United States" (1885), "Yick Wo v. Hopkins" (1886), "United States v. Kagama" (1886), "Ker v. Illinois" (1886), and "Mugler v. Kansas" (1887).

Joseph Scheidler: Joseph M. Scheidler (born September 7, 1927) is an American pro-life activist and the founder of the Pro-Life Action League.  He is known for his work in front of abortion clinics to stop women from having abortions, and for teaching other people to work against legal abortion.  Scheidler was the chief defendant in the NOW v. Scheidler litigation, filed in a 1986.  A Federal Court decided against him and in favor of the National Organization for Women in 1998.  He was found guilty of interstate racketeering, assessed fines and sentenced to prison.  This decision was unanimously overturned by the US Supreme Court in 2003, but NOW took the case under a slightly different issue before another lower Federal Court, and it was again decided against Scheidler.  However, this was again brought to the Supreme Court which again unanimously decided in his favor in 2006.  The Court granted him damages against NOW.  Scheidler lives in Chicago with his wife Ann, and has seven children and numerous grandchildren, many of whom are involved in his organization.

Supreme Court of the United States: The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest federal court of the United States.  Established pursuant to Article Three of the United States Constitution in 1789, it has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of federal law plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.  In the legal system of the United States, the Supreme Court is generally the final interpreter of federal law including the United States Constitution, but it may act only within the context of a case, in which it has jurisdiction.  The Court does not have power to decide political questions, and its enforcement arm is in the executive rather than judicial branch of government.

United States v. Dominguez Benitez: United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (2004) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that, in a criminal proceeding in federal court, a defendant who does not alert the district court to a possible violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure must show on appeal that the violation affirmatively affected his rights in order to obtain reversal of his conviction by guilty plea.  Rule 11, which pertains to criminal prosecutions in United States federal courts only, governs the offering of plea bargains to criminal defendants and the procedures district courts must employ to ensure that the defendant knows of and properly waives his trial-related constitutional rights.

Hollingsworth v. Perry: Hollingsworth v. Perry refers to a series of United States federal court cases that legalized same-sex marriage in the State of California.  The case began in 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found that banning same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the law.  This decision overturned ballot initiative Proposition 8, which had banned same-sex marriage.  After the State of California refused to defend Proposition 8, the official sponsors of Proposition 8 intervened and appealed to the Supreme Court.  The case was litigated during the governorships of both Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and was thus known as Perry v. Schwarzenegger and Perry v. Brown, respectively.  As "Hollingsworth v. Perry", it eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which held that, in line with prior precedent, the official sponsors of a ballot initiative measure did not have Article III standing to appeal an adverse federal court ruling when the state refused to do so.

Federal Supreme Court of the United Arab Emirates: The Federal Supreme Court of the United Arab Emirates (sometimes called the Union Supreme Court) is the highest federal court in the United Arab Emirates.  The Federal Supreme Court looks into challenges made by litigants to judgments issued by the Federal Court of Appeal.  Federal Supreme Court also retains jurisdiction, in certain circumstances, over exhaustive matters that no other type of Emirati court could look into.  The court falls under the authority of the Ministry of Justice.

Supporting paragraphs: United States v. Payner Supreme Court of the United States
Answer: The Supreme Court