The Ely miner. [volume] (Ely, Minn.) 1895-1986, 1937-07-08
The
SUPREME
COURT
AND HOW
II IT WORKS
HON. to Get a Hearing
By ROBERT MERRILL

| II z w CE1N lllS oupl ClllC SOOl
- in Washington and citizen
on the Pacific coast an entire
continent intervenes. But when
it comes to the protection of his
Constitutional rights, distance
means nothing. His case in a
local state or federal court may
reach the Supreme court of the
United States by steps easily
and quickly taken.
How can he get his problem be-
fore our National Umpire for de.
cision? Here, step by step, is the
method:
Suppose, for example, state
should pass a law making home
owner liable for the cost of repay
ing the street from curb to curb in
front of his house.
The home-owner claims that this
is a municipal expense, which the
city should pay out of its general
fund.
Appeals From State Court.
The city ignores his objection,
files a lien against his property and
threatens to sell him out for nom
payment.
In the local state court the citi-
zen's attorney moves to strike OIL
the lien. The court, relying on the
state statute, refuses. The home.
owner appeals to the Supreme cour,
of the state, which dismisses his ap.
peal and declares that either the
citizen must pay or have his house
sold over his head.
cam / through" asks the home.
owner.
Certainly not" replies his attor'
ney. well find out what the SUI
preme court of the United States
thinks about this"
So the home-owner's attorney
sends to Washington a short printed
petition, stating the facts, giving the
decision of the state court and ask
ing the United States Supreme court
to order the state court to send its
| record LOT review.
State Court Supplies Record.
When this petition reaches Wash
ington every one of the Supreme
court justices separately examines
it and also the printed answer of the
lawyer for the state. At the jus
tees conference on the following
Saturday morning. if all or ma
jority of them think there is sub
stance in the citizens claim, they
grant the petition-and the record
comes up from the state court.
The home-owner's case is ther
set down on the argument list. Law
yers on both sides file briefs. Wher
the case is about to be reached fol
argument all parties are notified
The citizens own attorney either ap
pears for him or entrusts the argu
ment to an attorney in Washington
The home-owner doesn't have to ap
pear at all.
The case is now argued. The
justices 60 into a huddle over it
After thorough consideration the de
cision is announced. The first paw
ing of the road, it may find, pecu
liarly benefits the citizens proper
ty, and therefore the cost can be
assessed against it. But subsequent
repavings of the space between
curbs are a community responsible
ity, and must be paid for out of the
tax money which all the citizens
contribute.
State Court Reversed.
The judgment of the state SUI
preme court is therefore reversed
and the record is sent back across
the continent with Instructions tc
strike off the lien.
If, in such case, the citizen has
| been a nonresident of the state ir
which this property was situated he
might have sought relief in the local
United States district court instead
of in the state court.
If he had lost his case both there
and in the local United States
circuit court of appeals, his subse.
quent approach to the Supreme
court of the United States would
have been the same as in the appeal
from the state court just described
The great help to the c tizen in
any such typical case lies in the
! fact that the final decision Is in the
hands of an umpire, concerned with
constitutional rights.
In this imaginary paving case,
the mayor and city council could
see only community advantage in
making the householder go on pay
ing for successive repavings. For
tunately the Supreme court exists
to see both sides of a picture and
so to insure the citizen against loss
of his property otherwise than by
the due process of law guaranteed
to him by the Fifth and the Four
teenth amendments to the Constitu.
ton.
@ Western Newspaper Uni,n.