Task: sc_caseorigin

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

OPINION OF THE COURT
[562 U.S. 30]
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (1978), this Court held that civil rights plaintiffs
[562 U.S. 31]
suing a municipal entity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 must show that their injury was caused by a municipal policy or custom. The case before the Court in Monell directly involved monetary damages. The question presented is whether the “policy or custom” requirement also applies when plaintiffs seek prospective relief, such as an injunction or a declaratory judgment. We conclude that it does so apply.
I
The case arises out of the following circumstances: The California Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act, Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 11164 et seq. (West Rev. Supp. 2010), requires law enforcement and other state agencies to investigate allegations of child abuse. These agencies must report to the California Department of Justice all instances of reported child abuse the agency finds “not unfounded,” even if they are “inconclusive or unsubstantiated.” §§ 11169(a), 11170(a)(3). The statute requires the department to include all these reports in a Child Abuse Central Index (Index), where they remain available to various state agencies for at least 10 years. § 11170(a). The statute also says that if
“a report has previously been filed which subsequently proves to be unfounded, the Department of Justice shall be notified in writing of that fact and shall not retain the report.” § 11169(a).
The statute, however, does not set forth procedures for reviewing whether a previously filed report is unfounded, or for allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion in the Index. Nor, up until the time of this lawsuit, had California or Los Angeles County created any such procedures. But cf. § 11170(a)(2) (“The submitting agencies are responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and retention of the reports described in this section”).
The two plaintiffs in this case were initially accused of child abuse. But they were later exonerated. They sought to have their names removed from the Index. Unable to
[562 U.S. 32]
convince the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department to remove them, they filed this § 1983 case against the attorney general of California, the Los Angeles County sheriff, two detectives in the sheriffs department, and the County of Los Angeles. They sought damages, an injunction, and a declaration that the defendants had deprived them of their constitutional rights by failing to create a procedural mechanism through which one could contest inclusion on the Index. See U. S. Const., Arndt. 14; Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to all of the defendants on the ground that California had not deprived the plaintiffs of a constitutionally protected “liberty” interest. But on appeal the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
The Ninth Circuit held that the Fourteenth Amendment required the State to provide those included on the list notice and “ ‘some kind of hearing.’” 554 F.3d 1170, 1201 (2009). Thus the Circuit held that the plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory relief, and it believed that (on remand) they might prove damages as well. Ibid.
The Ninth Circuit also held that the plaintiffs were prevailing parties, thereby entitled to approximately $600,000 in attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) (providing for payment of attorney’s fees to parties prevailing on § 1983 claims). See No. 05-56467 (June 22, 2009), App. to Pet. for Cert. 1-4 (hereinafter First Fee Order); No. 05-56467 (Dec. 2, 2009), App. to Reply to Brief in Opposition 1-2 (hereinafter Second Fee Order). The Ninth Circuit wrote that Los Angeles County must pay approximately $60,000 of this amount. First Fee Order 3; Second Fee Order 2.
Los Angeles County denied that it was liable and therefore that it could be held responsible for attorney’s fees. It argued that, in respect to the county, the plaintiffs were not prevailing parties. That is because the county is a municipal entity. Under Monell’s holding a municipal entity is liable under § 1983 only if a municipal “policy or custom” caused a
[562 U.S. 33]
plaintiff to be deprived of a federal right. 436 U.S., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). And it was state policy, not county policy, that brought about any deprivation here.
The Ninth Circuit responded to this argument as follows: First, it said that county policy might be responsible for the deprivation. It “is possible,” the Ninth Circuit said, that the county, “[b]y failing to” “creat[e] an independent procedure that would allow” the plaintiffs “to challenge their listing [,] . . . adopted a custom and policy that violated” the plaintiffs’ “constitutional rights.” 554 F.3d, at 1202. Second, it said that “because this issue is not clear based on the record before us on appeal ... we remand to the district court to determine the County’s liability under Monell.” Ibid. Third, it saw no reason to remand in respect to the county’s obligation to pay $60,000 in attorney’s fees. That, it wrote, is because “in our circuit . . . the limitations to liability established, in Monell do not apply to claims for prospective relief” such as the declaratory judgment that the Circuit had ordered entered. First Fee Order 3-4 (citing Chaloux v. Killeen, 886 F.2d 247, 250 (CA9 1989); Truth v. Kent School Dist., 542 F.3d 634, 644 (CA9 2008); emphasis added).
The county then asked us to review this last-mentioned Ninth Circuit holding, namely, the holding that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies only to claims for damages but not to claims for prospective relief. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided on this question, we granted the county’s petition for cer-tiorari. Compare Reynolds v. Giuliani, 506 F.3d 183, 191 (CA2 2007) (holding that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies to claims for prospective relief as well as claims for damages); Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dept., 315 F.3d 65, 71 (CA1 2002) (same); Greensboro Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 3157 v. Greensboro, 64 F.3d 962, 967, n. 6 (CA4 1995) (applying the Monell requirement to a prospective relief claim); Church v. Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332, 1347 (CA11 1994) (same), with
[562 U.S. 34]
Chaloux, supra, at 251 (holding that Monell does not apply to prospective relief claims). See also Gernetzke v. Kenosha Unified School Dist. No. 1, 274 F.3d 464, 468 (CA7 2001) (reserving the question but noting the “predominant” view that “Monell’s holding applies regardless of the nature of the relief sought”).
We conclude that Monell’s holding applies to § 1983 claims against municipalities for prospective relief as well as to claims for damages.
II
A
We begin with § 1983 itself, which provides:
“Every person who, under color of any [state] statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage . . . subjects, or causes to be subjected, any . . . other person . . . to the deprivation of any rights . . . secured by the Constitution and laws [of the United States], shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” (Emphasis added.)
In 1961, in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492, this Court held that municipal entities were not “person[s]” under § 1983. The Court based this conclusion on the history of the Civil Rights Act of 187l’s enactment. It noted that Congress rejected an amendment (called the Sherman amendment) that would have made municipalities liable for damage done by private persons “ ‘riotously and tumultuously assembled.’ ” Id., at 188-190, and n. 38, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (quoting Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 663 (1871)). This rejection, the Court thought, reflected a determination by the 1871 House of Representatives that “ ‘Congress had no constitutional power to impose any obligation upon county and town organizations, the mere instrumentality for the administration of state law.’ ” 365 U.S., at 190, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492 (quoting Cong. Globe, supra, at 804 (statement of Rep. Poland); emphasis added). The Court concluded that Congress must have doubted its “constitutional
[562 U.S. 35]
power ... to impose civil liability on municipalities.” 365 U.S., at 190, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492. And for that reason, Congress must have intended to exclude municipal corporations as § 1983 defendants. The statute’s key term “person” therefore did not cover municipal entities. Id., at 191, 81 S. Ct. 473, 5 L. Ed. 2d 492.
Sixteen years later, in Monell, the Court reconsidered the question of municipal liability. After reexamining the 1871 legislative history in detail, the Court concluded that Congress had rejected the Sherman amendment, not because it would have imposed liability upon municipalities, but because it would have imposed liability upon municipalities based purely upon the acts of others. That is to say, the rejected amendment would have imposed liability upon local governments “without regard to whether a local government was in any way at fault for the breach of the peace for which it was to be held for damages.” 436 U.S., at 681, n. 40, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). In Monell’s view Congress may have thought that it lacked the power to impose that kind of indirect liability upon municipalities, id., at 679, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611, but “nothing said in debate on the Sherman amendment would have prevented holding a municipality liable ... for its own violations of the Fourteenth Amendment,” id., at 683, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). The Court, overruling Monroe, held that municipalities were “persons” under § 1983. 436 U.S., at 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
The Court also concluded that a municipality could not be held liable under § 1983 solely because it employed a tortfeasor. The Court’s conclusion rested on “the language of § 1983, read against the background of the same legislative history.” Id., at 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. Section 1983’s causation language imposes liability on a “ ‘person who . . . shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person’ ” to a deprivation of federal rights. Ibid, (quoting 17 Stat. 13; emphasis deleted). That language, the Court observed, could not “be easily read to impose liability vicariously . . . solely on the basis of the existence of an employer-employee relationship with a tortfeasor.” 436 U.S., at 692, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. The statute’s legislative history,
[562 U.S. 36]
in particular the constitutional objections that had been raised to the Sherman amendment, supported this conclusion. Id., at 692-694, and n. 57, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
For these reasons, the Court concluded that a municipality could be held liable under § 1983 only for its own violations of federal law. Id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. The Court described what made a violation a municipality’s own violation:
“Local governing bodies, therefore, can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated by that body’s officers. . . . [They can also be sued for] deprivations visited pursuant to governmental ‘custom’ even though such a custom has not received formal approval through the body’s official decisionmaking channels.” Id., at 690-691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (footnote omitted).
The Court has also included the terms “usage” and “practice” as customs for which liability is appropriate. See ibid. The length of this list of types of municipal action leads us here to use a shorthand term “policy or custom,” but when we do so, we mean to refer to the entire list. See id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (using the shorthand “policy or custom”); see also, e.g., Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257-258, 129 S. Ct. 788, 172 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2009) (using the phrase “custom, policy, or practice,” to describe municipal liability under § 1983).
In sum, in Monell the Court held that “a municipality cannot be held liable” solely for the acts of others, e.g., “solely because it employs a tort-feasor.” 436 U.S., at 691, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611. But the municipality may be held liable “when execution of a government’s policy or custom . . . inflicts the injury.” Id., at 694, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added).
B
The language of § 1983 read in light of Monell’s understanding of the legislative history explains why claims for
[562 U.S. 37]
prospective relief, like claims for money damages, fall within the scope of the “policy or custom” requirement. Nothing in the text of § 1983 suggests that the causation requirement contained in the statute should change with the form of relief sought. In fact, the text suggests the opposite when it provides that a person who meets § 1983’s elements “shall be liable ... in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.” Thus, as Monell explicitly stated, “[l]ocal governing bodies .. . can be sued directly under § 1983 for monetary, declaratory, or injunctive relief where, as here, the action that is alleged to be unconstitutional implements or executes” a policy or custom. 436 U.S., at 690, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). Monell went on to quote this Court’s statement in a 1973 case, Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 513, 93 S. Ct. 2222, 37 L. Ed. 2d 109, to the effect that the Congress that enacted § 1983 did not intend the “ ‘generic word “person” . . . to have a bifurcated application to municipal corporations depending on the nature of the relief sought against them.’ ” 436 U.S., at 701, n. 66, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611 (emphasis added). Monell added that “[n]othing we say today affects” this pre-Monell “conclusion.” Ibid-
Monell’s logic also argues against any such relief-based bifurcation. The Monell Court thought that Congress intended potential § 1983 liability where a municipality’s own violations were at issue but not where only the violations of others were at issue. The “policy or custom” requirement rests upon that distinction and embodies it in law. To find the requirement inapplicable where prospective relief is at issue would undermine Monell’s logic. For whether an action or omission is a municipality’s “own” has to do with the nature of the action or omission, not with the nature of the relief that is later sought in court.
C
The Humphrieses’ (hereinafter respondents) arguments to the contrary are unconvincing. Respondents correctly note that by the time Monell reached the Supreme Court only the plaintiffs’ damages claim remained live. See id., at 661, 98 S. Ct. 2018, 56 L. Ed. 2d 611.
[562 U.S. 38]
From this fact they conclude that the Court’s holding applies directly only to claims for monetary damages. A holding, however, can extend through its logic beyond the specific facts of the particular case. It does so here.
Respondents add that not only did Monell involve a damages claim, but its holding rests upon the concern that municipalities might have to pay large damages awards. The Court so suggests when it points out that municipalities should not be liable for an employee’s wrongful acts, simply by applying agency-based principles of respondeat superior. But as we have pointed out, the Court’s rejection of respondeat superior liability primarily rested not on the municipality’s economic needs, but on the fact that liability in such a case does not arise out of the municipality’s own wrongful conduct.
Respondents further claim that, where prospective relief is at issue, Monell is redundant. They say that a court cannot grant prospective relief against a municipality unless the municipality’s own conduct has caused the violation. Hence, where such relief is otherwise proper, the Monell requirement “shouldn’t screen out any case.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 48.
To argue that a requirement is necessarily satisfied, however, is not to argue that its satisfaction is unnecessary. If respondents are right, our holding may have limited practical significance. But that possibility does not provide us with a convincing reason to sow confusion by adopting a bifurcated relief-based approach to municipal liability that the Court has previously rejected.
Finally, respondents make the mirror-image argument that applying Monell’s requirement to prospective relief claims will leave some set of ongoing constitutional violations beyond redress. Despite the fact that four Circuits apply Monell’s requirement to prospective relief, however, respondents have not presented us with any actual or hypothetical example that provides serious cause for concern.
[562 U.S. 39]
For these reasons, we hold that Monell’s “policy or custom” requirement applies in § 1983 cases irrespective of whether the relief sought is monetary or prospective. The Ninth Circuit’s contrary judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?
年. U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
数. U.S. Court of International Trade
日. U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
的. U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
月. U.S. Court of Military Review
用. U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
成. U.S. Customs Court
名. U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
时. U.S. Tax Court
件. Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
一. U.S. Court for China
请. U.S. Consular Courts
中. U.S. Commerce Court
据. Territorial Supreme Court
码. Territorial Appellate Court
不. Territorial Trial Court
新. Emergency Court of Appeals
文. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
下. Bankruptcy Court
分. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
入. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
人. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
功. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
上. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
户. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
为. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
间. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
号. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
取. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
回. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
在. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
页. Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
字. Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
有. Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
个. Alaska U.S. District Court
作. Arizona U.S. District Court
示. Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
出. Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
是. California Central U.S. District Court
失. California Eastern U.S. District Court
表. California Northern U.S. District Court
除. California Southern U.S. District Court
加. Colorado U.S. District Court
败. Connecticut U.S. District Court
生. Delaware U.S. District Court
信. District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
类. Florida Middle U.S. District Court
置. Florida Northern U.S. District Court
理. Florida Southern U.S. District Court
本. Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
息. Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
行. Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
定. Guam U.S. District Court
改. Hawaii U.S. District Court
市. Idaho U.S. District Court
期. Illinois Central U.S. District Court
以. Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
修. Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
元. Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
方. Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
录. Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
区. Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
单. Kansas U.S. District Court
位. Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
型. Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
法. Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
县. Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
存. Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
品. Maine U.S. District Court
前. Maryland U.S. District Court
称. Massachusetts U.S. District Court
注. Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
值. Michigan Western U.S. District Court
输. Minnesota U.S. District Court
建. Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
能. Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
大. Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
例. Missouri Western U.S. District Court
度. Montana U.S. District Court
始. Nebraska U.S. District Court
到. Nevada U.S. District Court
面. New Hampshire U.S. District Court
载. New Jersey U.S. District Court
点. New Mexico U.S. District Court
密. New York Eastern U.S. District Court
动. New York Northern U.S. District Court
果. New York Southern U.S. District Court
图. New York Western U.S. District Court
提. North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
发. North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
式. North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
国. North Dakota U.S. District Court
登. Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
错. Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
者. Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
认. Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
误. Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
接. Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
关. Oregon U.S. District Court
重. Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
第. Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
地. Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
如. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
设. Rhode Island U.S. District Court
目. South Carolina U.S. District Court
开. South Dakota U.S. District Court
事. Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
可. Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
要. Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
代. Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
小. Texas Northern U.S. District Court
选. Texas Southern U.S. District Court
标. Texas Western U.S. District Court
明. Utah U.S. District Court
编. Vermont U.S. District Court
求. Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
列. Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
网. Virginia Western U.S. District Court
万. Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
最. Washington Western U.S. District Court
器. West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
所. West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
内. Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
体. Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
通. Wyoming U.S. District Court
务. Louisiana U.S. District Court
此. Washington U.S. District Court
商. West Virginia U.S. District Court
序. Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
化. South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
消. South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
否. Alabama U.S. District Court
保. U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
使. Georgia U.S. District Court
次. Illinois U.S. District Court
机. Indiana U.S. District Court
对. Iowa U.S. District Court
量. Michigan U.S. District Court
查. Mississippi U.S. District Court
部. Missouri U.S. District Court
性. New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
和. New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
更. New York U.S. District Court
后. North Carolina U.S. District Court
证. Ohio U.S. District Court
题. Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
确. Tennessee U.S. District Court
格. Texas U.S. District Court
了. Virginia U.S. District Court
于. Norfolk U.S. District Court
金. Wisconsin U.S. District Court
公. Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
午. New Jersey U.S. District Court
円. California U.S. District Court
片. Florida U.S. District Court
空. Arkansas U.S. District Court
态. District of Orleans U.S. District Court
管. State Supreme Court
主. State Appellate Court
天. State Trial Court
自. Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
我. Middle Circuit (of the United States)
全. Southern Circuit (of the United States)
今. Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
来. Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
正. California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
说. Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
意. Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
送. Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
容. Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
已. Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
结. Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
会. Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
段. Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
计. Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
源. Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
色. Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
時. Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
交. Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
系. Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
过. Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
电. Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
询. Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
符. Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
未. New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
程. New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
常. New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
条. North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
当. Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
情. Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
口. Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
合. Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
车. South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
实. Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
组. Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
版. Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
周. Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
址. West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
记. Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
二. Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
同. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
业. Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
权. Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
其. Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
进. Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
试. Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
验. Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah
料. South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota
传. North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota
述. Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma
集. Court of Private Land Claims
多. United States Supreme Court
Answer:

Answer: 是