Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/22-210_7mi8.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

Cite as:  598 U. S. ____ (2023) 

5 

Opinion of the Court 

come by later developments in the litigation.  As Ortiz ex-
plains, one such ruling is the denial of summary judgment
on  sufficiency-of-the-evidence  grounds.    562  U. S.,  at  184. 
Factual  challenges  depend  on,  well,  the  facts,  which  the 
parties develop and clarify as the case progresses from sum-
mary judgment to a jury verdict.  Thus, “[o]nce the case pro-
ceeds to trial, the full record developed in court supersedes 
the  record  existing  at  the  time  of  the  summary-judgment
motion.”  Ibid.  So after trial, a district court’s assessment 
of  the  facts  based  on  the  summary-judgment  record  be-
comes “ancient history and [is] not subject to appeal.”  Em-
press Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc., 831 
F. 3d  815,  823–824  (CA7  2016).    Fact-dependent  appeals 
must be appraised in light of the complete trial record. 
  It  follows,  Ortiz  holds,  that  a  party  must  raise  a  suffi-
ciency-of-the-evidence  claim  in  a  post-trial  motion  to  pre-
serve it for appeal.  562 U. S., at 191–192.  Appellate review,
by  its  nature,  requires  a  lower  court  decision  to  review. 
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U. S. 868, 895 (1991) (Scalia, 
J.,  concurring  in  part  and  concurring  in  judgment)  (the
“very word ‘review’ presupposes that a litigant’s arguments
have been raised and considered in the tribunal of first in-
stance”).  This is especially important for factual challenges
based on the trial record, which “cal[l] for the judgment in
the first instance of the judge who saw and heard the wit-
nesses  and  has  the  feel  of  the  case  which  no  appellate 
printed transcript can impart.”  Cone v. West Virginia Pulp 
& Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212, 216 (1947).  The filing of a post-
trial motion under Rule 50 allows the district court to take 
first crack at the question that the appellate court will ulti-
mately face: Was there sufficient evidence in the trial record 
to  support  the  jury’s  verdict?  Absent  such  a  motion,  “an 
appellate court is ‘powerless’ to review the sufficiency of the 
evidence  after  trial.”  Ortiz,  562  U. S.,  at  189  (quoting 
Unitherm  Food  Systems,  Inc.  v.  Swift-Eckrich,  Inc.,  546 
U. S. 394, 405 (2006)).