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.

Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
Before us for review are orders of a three-judge court in the Western District of Texas effectively directing the State not to conduct this year's elections using districting plans that the court itself adopted some years earlier. The court developed those plans for use in the 2012 elections pursuant to our directions in Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388, 132 S.Ct. 934, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012) (per curiam ). We instructed the three-judge court to start with the plans adopted by the Texas Legislature in 2011 but to make adjustments as required by the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 392-396, 132 S.Ct. 934. After those plans were used in 2012, the Texas Legislature enacted them (with only minor modifications) in 2013, and the plans were used again in both 2014 and 2016.
Last year, however, the three-judge court reversed its prior analysis and held that some of the districts in those plans are unlawful. After reviewing the repealed 2011 plans, which had never been used, the court found that they were tainted by discriminatory intent and that the 2013 Legislature had not "cured" that "taint."
We now hold that the three-judge court committed a fundamental legal error. It was the challengers' burden to show that the 2013 Legislature acted with discriminatory intent when it enacted plans that the court itself had produced. The 2013 Legislature was not obligated to show that it had "cured" the unlawful intent that the court attributed to the 2011 Legislature. Thus, the essential pillar of the three-judge court's reasoning was critically flawed.
When the congressional and state legislative districts are reviewed under the proper legal standards, all but one of them, we conclude, are lawful.
I
A
The 2010 decennial census revealed that the population of Texas had grown by more than 20% and the State was therefore apportioned four additional seats in the United States House of Representatives. C.J.S. 369a. To accommodate this new allocation and the population changes shown by the census, the Legislature adopted a new congressional districting plan, as well as new districting maps for the two houses of the State Legislature.
Redistricting is never easy, and the task was especially complicated in Texas in 2011. Not only was the Legislature required to draw districts that were substantially equal in population, see Perry, supra, at 391-392, 126 S.Ct. 2594 ; Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S.Ct. 1362, 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964) ; Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964), and to comply with special state-law districting rules, but federal law imposed complex and delicately balanced requirements regarding the consideration of race.
Then, as now, federal law restricted the use of race in making districting decisions. The Equal Protection Clause forbids "racial gerrymandering," that is, intentionally assigning citizens to a district on the basis of race without sufficient justification. Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630, 641, 113 S.Ct. 2816, 125 L.Ed.2d 511 (1993). It also prohibits intentional "vote dilution"-"invidiously... minimiz[ing] or cancel[ing] out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities." Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 66-67, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980) (plurality opinion).
While the Equal Protection Clause imposes these important restrictions, its application in the field of districting is complicated. For one thing, because a voter's race sometimes correlates closely with political party preference, see Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1455, 1473-1474, 197 L.Ed.2d 837 (2017) ; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 243, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001), it may be very difficult for a court to determine whether a districting decision was based on race or party preference. Here, the three-judge court found that the two factors were virtually indistinguishable.
At the same time that the Equal Protection Clause restricts the consideration of race in the districting process, compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 52 U.S.C. § 10301 et seq. (VRA), pulls in the opposite direction: It often insists that districts be created precisely because of race. Two provisions of the VRA exert such demands, and in 2011, Texas was subject to both.
At that time, Texas was covered by § 5 of the VRA and was thus barred from making any districting changes unless it could prove that they did not result in "retrogression" with respect to the ability of racial minorities to elect the candidates of their choice. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1257, 1263, 191 L.Ed.2d 314 (2015). That showing obviously demanded consideration of race.
On top of this, Texas was (and still is) required to comply with § 2 of the VRA. A State violates § 2 if its districting plan provides " 'less opportunity' " for racial minorities " 'to elect representatives of their choice.' " League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399, 425, 126 S.Ct. 2594, 165 L.Ed.2d 609 (2006) (LULAC ). In a series of cases tracing back to Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986), we have interpreted this standard to mean that, under certain circumstance, States must draw "opportunity" districts in which minority groups form "effective majorit[ies]," LULAC, supra, at 426, 126 S.Ct. 2594.
Since the Equal Protection Clause restricts consideration of race and the VRA demands consideration of race, a legislature attempting to produce a lawful districting plan is vulnerable to " 'competing hazards of liability.' " Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 977, 116 S.Ct. 1941, 135 L.Ed.2d 248 (1996) (plurality opinion). In an effort to harmonize these conflicting demands, we have assumed that compliance with the VRA may justify the consideration of race in a way that would not otherwise be allowed. In technical terms, we have assumed that complying with the VRA is a compelling state interest, see, e.g., Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 788, 800-801, 197 L.Ed.2d 85 (2017) ; Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899, 915, 116 S.Ct. 1894, 135 L.Ed.2d 207 (1996), and that a State's consideration of race in making a districting decision is narrowly tailored and thus satisfies strict scrutiny if the State has " 'good reasons' " for believing that its decision is necessary in order to comply with the VRA. Cooper, supra, at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1464.
B
Facing this legal obstacle course, the Texas Legislature in 2011 adopted new districting plans, but those plans were immediately tied up in litigation and were never used. Several plaintiff groups quickly filed challenges in the District Court for the Western District of Texas, arguing that some of the districts in the new plans were racial gerrymanders, some were based on intentional vote dilution, and some had the effect of depriving minorities of the equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice. This case was assigned to a three-judge court, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). (We will call this court "the Texas court" or simply "the District Court.")
The situation was further complicated by the requirement that Texas obtain preclearance of its new plans. To do this, Texas filed for a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the District of Columbia. See Texas v. United States, 887 F.Supp.2d 133 (2012). (We will call this court "the D.C. court.") By early 2012, the D.C. court had not yet issued a decision, and Texas needed usable plans for its rapidly approaching primaries. Accordingly, the Texas court drew up interim plans for that purpose. Perez v. Perry, 835 F.Supp.2d 209 (W.D.Tex.2011). In creating those plans, the majority of the Texas court thought that it was not "required to give any deference to the Legislature's enacted plan." Id., at 213. Instead, it based its plans on what it called "neutral principles that advance the interest of the collective public good." Id., at 212.
Texas challenged those court-ordered plans in this Court, and we reversed. Perry v. Perez, 565 U.S. 388, 132 S.Ct. 934, 181 L.Ed.2d 900 (2012) (per curiam ). Noting that "[r]edistricting is 'primarily the duty and responsibility of the State,' " we held that the Texas court should have respected the legislative judgments embodied in the 2011 plans to the extent allowed by the Constitution and the VRA. Id., at 392-399, 132 S.Ct. 934.
We remanded the case with very specific instructions. The Texas court was told to start with the plans adopted by the Legislature but to modify those plans as needed so as "not to incorporate... any legal defects." Id., at 394, 132 S.Ct. 934. With respect to claims under the Constitution or § 2 of the VRA, the District Court was told to change a district if the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge. Ibid. And with respect to § 5 claims, the court was instructed to make whatever changes were needed to obviate any legal claim that was "not insubstantial." Id., at 395, 132 S.Ct. 934. Thus, our instructions, in an abundance of caution, demanded changes in the challenged 2011 plans without proof that those changes were actually required by either the Constitution or the VRA.
On remand, the Texas court ordered additional briefing and heard two more days of argument. App. 29a, 35a-50a; Order in Civ. No. 11-cv-00360, Doc. No. 616. It issued two opinions, totaling more than 70 pages, and analyzed disputed districts in detail. C.J.S. 367a-423a; H.J.S. 300a-315a. While stressing the preliminary nature of its determinations, see C.J.S. 368a; H.J.S. 314a-315a, the court found that some districts required change and that others were lawful, C.J.S. 367a-423a; H.J.S. 300a-315a. The court then adopted plans for the State's congressional districts and for both houses of the State Legislature. (The plan for the State Senate is not at issue.)
Both the congressional plan and the plan for the Texas House departed significantly from the State's 2011 plans. At least 8 of the 36 congressional districts were markedly altered, and 21 districts in the plan for the Texas House were "substantially" changed. H.J.S. 314a; C.J.S. 397a-408a.
In August 2012, the D.C. court denied preclearance of the plans adopted by the Legislature in 2011, see Texas v. United States, supra, so the State conducted the 2012 elections under the interim plans devised by the Texas court. At the same time, Texas filed an appeal in this Court contesting the decision of the D.C. court, but that appeal ultimately died for two reasons.
First, the 2011 plans were repealed. The Texas attorney general urged the Legislature to pass new redistricting plans, C.J.S. 429a, and in his view, the "best way to remedy the violations found by the D.C. court" was to "adopt the [Texas court's] interim plans as the State's permanent redistricting maps." Id., at 432a. Doing so, he said, would "confirm the legislature's intent" to adopt "a redistricting plan that fully comports with the law." Id., at 429a.
The Governor called a special session to do just that, and the Legislature complied. One of the legislative sponsors, Senator Seliger, explained that, although " 'the Texas Legislature remains confident that the legislatively-drawn maps adopted in 2011 are fair and legal..., there remain several outstanding legal questions regarding these maps that undermine the stability and predictability of the electoral process in Texas.' " 274 F.Supp.3d 624, 649, n. 40 (D.C.Cir.2017). Counsel for one of the plaintiff groups, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), testified in favor of the plans. C.J.S. 436a-439a. The 2013 Legislature then repealed the 2011 plans and enacted the Texas court's interim plans with just a few minor changes. The federal congressional plan was not altered at all, and only small modifications were made to the plan for the Texas House. C.J.S. Findings 231a-232a.
On the day after the Legislature passed the new plans and the day before the Governor signed them, this Court issued its decision in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 133 S.Ct. 2612, 186 L.Ed.2d 651 (2013), which invalidated the coverage formula in § 4 of the Voting Rights Act. Now no longer subject to § 5, Texas obtained a vacatur of the D.C. court's order on preclearance. 274 F.Supp.3d, at 634-635, and n. 11.
With the never-effective 2011 plans now repealed and any preclearance issues overcome by events, the State argued in the Texas court that the plaintiffs' case against the 2011 plans was moot. In September 2013, the Texas court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaints to challenge the 2013 plans, but the court held that their challenges to the 2011 plans were still alive, reasoning that the repeal of the 2011 plans represented the "voluntary cessation" of allegedly unconstitutional conduct.
Texas conducted its 2014 and 2016 elections under the plans that had been preliminarily approved by the Texas court and subsequently adopted (with only minor changes) by the Legislature in 2013. But in March and April 2017, after multiple trials, the Texas court issued a pair of rulings on the defunct 2011 plans. The court reaffirmed the conclusions it had reached in 2012 about defects in the 2011 plans, and it went further. Contrary to its earlier decision, it held that Congressional District (CD) 35 is an impermissible racial gerrymander and that CD27 violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it has the effect of diluting the electoral opportunities of Latino voters. C.J.S. 181a, 193a-194a. Previously, the court had provided detailed reasons for rejecting the very arguments that it now accepted. Id., at 409a-423a. Similarly, the court held that multiple districts in the plan for the Texas House were the result of intentional vote dilution. These included districts in the counties of Nueces (House District (HD) 32, HD34), Bell (HD54, HD55), and Dallas (HD103, HD104, HD105). H.J.S. 275a-276a.
In August 2017, having ruled on the repealed 2011 plans, the Texas court finally turned its attention to the plans then in effect-i.e., the plans that had been developed by the court, adopted by the Legislature in 2013, and used in both the 2014 and 2016 elections. The court invalidated the districts in those plans that correspond to districts in the 2011 plan that it had just held to be unlawful, i.e., CD27, CD35, HD32, HD34, HD54, HD55, HD103, HD104, and HD105. See 274 F.Supp.3d 624 (2017) (No. 17-586) and 267 F.Supp.3d 750 (2017) (No. 17-626).
In reaching these conclusions, the court pointed to the discriminatory intent allegedly harbored by the 2011 Legislature, and it attributed this same intent to the 2013 Legislature because it had failed to "engage in a deliberative process to ensure that the 2013 plans cured any taint from the 2011 plans." 274 F.Supp.3d, at 645-652 ; 267 F.Supp.3d, at 757. The court saw "no indication that the Legislature looked to see whether any discriminatory taint remained in the plans." 274 F.Supp.3d, at 649. And it faulted the State because it "did not accept [findings of the D.C. court] and instead appealed to the Supreme Court." Ibid. Seeing no evidence that the State had undergone "a change of heart," the court concluded that the Legislature's "decision to adopt the [District Court's] plans" was a "litigation strategy designed to insulate the 2011 or 2013 plans from further challenge, regardless of their legal infirmities." Id., at 649-650. Finally, summarizing its analysis, the court reiterated that the 2011 Legislature's "discriminatory taint was not removed by the [2013] Legislature's enactment of the Court's interim plans, because the Legislature engaged in no deliberative process to remove any such taint, and in fact intended any such taint to be maintained but be safe from remedy." Id., at 686.
The Texas court's decisions about CD35 and all but three of the Texas House districts were based entirely on its finding that the 2013 Legislature had not purged its predecessor's discriminatory intent. However, the court also held that three districts-CD27, HD32, and HD34-were invalid under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act because they had the effect of depriving Latinos of the equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. Id., at 682-686 ; 267 F.Supp.3d, at 775-783. And the court found independent proof that HD90 was a racial gerrymander. Id., at 788-794.
The court held that violations in all these districts "must be remedied." 274 F.Supp.3d, at 686 ; see also 267 F.Supp.3d, at 795 (describing State House district violations that "must be remedied"). Mindful that October 1 was the deadline for the Texas Secretary of State to provide voter registration templates to the State's counties, App. 380a-381a, the court took steps to bring about prompt remedial action. In two orders issued on August 15 and 24, the Texas attorney general was instructed to advise the court, within three days, "whether the Legislature intends to take up redistricting in an effort to cure these violations." 274 F.Supp.3d, at 686 ; 267 F.Supp.3d, at 795. If the Legislature chose not to do so, the court warned, it would "hold a hearing to consider remedial plans." Ibid. After the Governor made clear that the State would not act, the court ordered the parties to proceed with a hearing on the congressional plan on September 5, as well as a hearing on the plan for the Texas House on September 6. 274 F.Supp.3d, at 686 ; 267 F.Supp.3d, at 795 ; App. 134a-136a; Defendants' Opposed Motion To Stay Order on Plan C235 Pending Appeal or Final Judgment in Civ. No. 11-cv-00360, Doc. 1538, pp. 3-4; Defendants' Opposed Motion To Stay Order on Plan H358 Pending Appeal or Final Judgment, Doc. No. 1550, pp. 4-5.
Texas applied for stays of both orders, but the District Court denied the applications. App. 134a-136a. Texas then asked this Court to stay the orders, and we granted that relief. After receiving jurisdictional statements, we postponed consideration of jurisdiction and set the cases for consolidated argument. 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 735, 199 L.Ed.2d 601 (2018).
II
Before reaching the merits of these appeals, we must assure ourselves that we have jurisdiction to review the orders at issue. Appellants claim that the orders amount to injunctions and are therefore appealable to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Appellees disagree, contending that the orders do not qualify as injunctions. We hold that we have jurisdiction because the orders were effectively injunctions in that they barred Texas from using the districting plans now in effect to conduct this year's elections.
A
The Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, "established the general principle that only final decisions of the federal district courts would be reviewable on appeal." Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 83, 101 S.Ct. 993, 67 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981) (emphasis deleted). But because "rigid application of this principle was found to create undue hardship in some cases," Congress created exceptions. Ibid. Two are relevant here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1253 to hear an appeal from an order of a three-judge district court "granting or denying... an interlocutory or permanent injunction." Similarly, § 1292(a)(1) gives the courts of appeals jurisdiction over "[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts" "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions," "except where a direct review may be had in the Supreme Court."
The orders in these cases fall within § 1253. To be sure, the District Court did not call its orders "injunctions"-in fact, it disclaimed the term, App. 134a-136a-but the label attached to an order is not dispositive. We have previously made clear that where an order has the "practical effect" of granting or denying an injunction, it should be treated as such for purposes of appellate jurisdiction. Carson, supra, at 83, 101 S.Ct. 993 ; see also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 287-288, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). We applied this test in Carson, holding that an order that declined to enter a consent decree prohibiting certain conduct could be appealed under § 1292(a)(1) because it was the practical equivalent of an order denying an injunction and threatened serious and perhaps irreparable harm if not immediately reviewed. 450 U.S., at 83-84, 86-90, 101 S.Ct. 993.
This "practical effect" rule serves a valuable purpose. If an interlocutory injunction is improperly granted or denied, much harm can occur before the final decision in the district court. Lawful and important conduct may be barred, and unlawful and harmful conduct may be allowed to continue. Recognizing this, Congress authorized interlocutory appellate review of such orders. But if the availability of interlocutory review depended on the district court's use of the term "injunction" or some other particular language, Congress's scheme could be frustrated. The harms that Congress wanted to avoid could occur so long as the district court was careful about its terminology. The "practical effect" inquiry prevents such manipulation.
In analogous contexts, we have not allowed district courts to "shield [their] orders from appellate review" by avoiding the label "injunction." Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 87, 94 S.Ct. 937, 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974). For instance, in Sampson, we held that an order labeled a temporary restraining order (which is not appealable under § 1292(a)(1) ) should be treated as a "preliminary injunction" (which is appealable) since the order had the same practical effect as a preliminary injunction. Id., at 86-88, 94 S.Ct. 937.
Appellees and the dissent contend that the "practical effect" approach

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: 标