Task: sc_casesource

What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed. If the case arose under the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, note the source as "United States Supreme Court". If the case arose in a state court, note the source as "State Supreme Court", "State Appellate Court", or "State Trial Court". Do not code the name of the state. 

Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the-Court.
Section 792 of California’s Agricultural Code, which gauges the maturity of avocados by oil content, prohibits the transportation or sale in California of avocados which contain “less than 8 per cent of oil, by weight... excluding the skin and seed.” In contrast, federal marketing orders approved by the Secretary of Agriculture gauge the maturity of avocados grown in Florida by standards which attribute no significance to oil content. This case presents the question of the constitutionality of the California statute insofar as it may be applied to exclude from California markets certain Florida avocados which, although certified to be mature under the federal regulations, do not uniformly meet the California requirement of 8% of oil.
Appellants in No. 45, growers and handlers of avocados in Florida, brought this action in the District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin the enforcement of § 792 against Florida avocados certified as mature under the federal regulations. Appellants challenged the constitutionality of the-statute on three grounds : (1) that •under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, the California standard must be deemed displaced by the federal stand-' ard for determining the maturity of avocados grown in Florida; (2) that the application of the California statute to Florida-grown avocados denied appellants the Equal Protection of the Laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; (3) that its application unreasonably burdened or discriminated against interstate marketing o.f Florida-grown avocados in violation of the Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8. A three-judge District Court initially dismissed the complaint. 169 F. Supp. 774. On direct appeal we held, Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc., v. Jacobsen, 362 U. S. 73, that the suit was one for a three-judge court under 28 U. S. C. § 2281, and presented a jus-ticiable controversy to be tried on the merits. After a trial the three-judge court denied an injunction against the enforcement of § 792, on the ground that the proofs did not establish that its’application to Florida-grown avocados violated any provision of the Federal Constitution. 197 F. Supp. 780. The District Court held for several reasons that the Supremacy Clause did not operate to displace § 792: no actual conflict existed between the statute and the federal marketing orders; neither the Agricultural Act nor the marketing orders occupied the field to the exclusion of the state statute; and Congress had • not ordained that a federal marketing order was to give a license to Florida producers to “market their avocados without further inspection by the states” after compliance with the federal maturity test. 197 F. Supp:, at 787. Rather, the court observed, “[t]he Federal law does not cover the whole field of interstate shipment of avocados” but by necessary implication leaves.the regulation of certain aspects of distribution to the States. Further, the District Court found no violation of the Equal Protection Clause because the California statute was applicable on identical terms to Florida and California producers, and was reasonably designed to enforce a traditional and legitimate interest of the State of'California in the protection of California consumers.’ The District Court concluded, finally, that § 792 did not unreasonably burden or discriminate against interstate commerce in out-of-state avocados — that the 8% oil content test served in practice only to keep off California grocers’ shelves fruit which was unpalatable because prematurely picked. This holding rested in part on the conclusion that mature Florida fruit had not been shown to be incapable of.attaining 8% oil content, since only a very small fraction of Florida avocados of certain varieties in fact failed to meet the California test.
Both parties have brought appeals here from the District Court’s judgment: the Florida growers urge in No. 45 that the court erred in not enjoining enforcement of the state statute against Florida-grown avocados; in No. 49 the California state officials appeal on the ground that the action should have been dismissed for want of equity jurisdiction rather than upon the merits. We noted probable jurisdiction' of both appeals. 368 U. S. '964, -965. We. affirm the judgment in the respect challenged by the cross-appeal in No. 49. In No. 45 we agree that appellants have not sustained their challenges to § 792 under the Supremacy and Equal Protection Clauses. However, we reverse and remand for a new trial insofar-as the judgment sustains § 792 against appellants’ challénge to the statute grounded on the Commerce Clause. We hold that the. effect of the statute upon interstate commerce cannot be determined on the record now before us.
The California statute was enacted in 1925. Like the federal marketing regulations applicable to appellants, this statute sought to ensure the maturity of avocados reaching retail markets. The District Court found on sufficient evidence that before 1925 the marketing of immature avocados had created serious problems in California. An avocado, if picked prematurely, will not ripen properly, but will tend to decay or shrivel and become rubbery and unpalatable after purchase. Not only retail consumers but even experienced grocers have difficulty in distinguishing mature avocados from the immature by physical characteristics alone. Thus, the District Court concluded, “[t]he marketing of... [immature] avocados cheats the consumer” and adversely affects demand for and orderly distribution of the fruit. 197 F. Supp., at 783.
The federal marketing regulations were adopted pursuant to the Agricultural Adjustment Act, 7 U. S. C. §§ 601 et seg. The declared purposes of the Act are to restore and maintain parity prices" for the benefit of producers of agricultural commodities, to ensure the stable' and steady flow of commodities to consumers, and “to establish and maintain such minimum standards of quality and maturity... as will effectuate such orderly marketing of such agricultural commodities as will be in the public interest,” § 2 (3), 7 U. S. C. § 602 (3). Whenever he finds that it would promote these declared policies, the Secretary is empowered upon notice and hearing to adopt federal marketing orders and regulations for a particular growing area, § 8c (3), (4),'7 U. S. C. § 608c (3), (4). Orders thus proposed by the Secretary become effective only when approved by a majority of the growers or producers concerned, § 8c (8), (9), 7 U. S. C. § 608c (8), (9).
In 1954, after proceedings in compliance with the statute, 19 Fed. Reg. 3439, the Secretary promulgated orders governing the marketing, of avocados grown in South Florida. The orders established an Avocado Administrative Committee, composed entirely of South Florida avocado growers and handlers. 7 CFR § 969.20. This Committee has authority to draft and recommend to the Secretary various marketing regulations governing the quality and maturity of South Florida avocados. The maturity test for the South Fbrida fruit is based upon a schedule of picking dates, sizes and weights annually drafted and recommended by the Committee and promul-gáted by the Secretary. The regulations forbid picking and shipping of any fruit before the prescribed date, although an exemption from the picking-date schedule may be granted by the Committee. The regulations drafted by the Committee and promulgated by the Secretary concern other qualities and physical characteristics of Florida avocados besides maturity. See 22 Fed. Reg. 6205, 7 CFR §§ 51.3050-51.3053, 51.3064. All regulated avocados, including those shipped under picking-date exemptions, must be inspected for compliance with certain quality standards by the Federal-State Inspection Service, a joint authority supervised by'the United States and Florida Departments of Agriculture.
Almost all avocados commercially grown in the United States come either from Southern California or South Florida. The California-grown varieties are chiefly of 'Mexican ancestry, and in most years contain at least 8% oil content when mature. The several Florida species, by contrast, are of West Indian and Guatemalan ancestry. West Indian avocados, which constitute some 12% of the total Florida production, may contain somewhat less than 8% oil when mature and ready for market. They do not, the District Court found, attain that percentage of oil “until they are‘past their-prime.” 197 F. Supp., at 783. But that variety neéd not concern us in this case, since the District Court concluded on sufficient evidence that “poor shipping qualities and short retail store shelf-life” make it commercially unprofitable, regardless of the oil test, to market the variety in California. On the other hand, the Florida hybrid and Guatemalan varieties, which do not encounter such handicaps, may reach maturity before, they attain 8% oil content. The District Court concluded, nevertheless, that § 792 did not unreasonably interfere with their marketability' since these'species “attain or exceed 8% oil content while in a prime commercial marketing condition,” so that the California test was “scientifically valid as applied to” these varieties.
The experts who testified at the trial disputed whether California’s percentage-of-oil test or the federal marketing orders’ test of picking dates and minimum sizes and weights was the more accurate gauge of the maturity of avocados. In adopting' his calendar test of maturity for the varieties grown in South Florida the Secretary expressly rejected physical and chemical tests as insufficiently reliable guides for gauging the maturity of the Florida fruit.
I.
We consider first appellants’ challenge to § 792 under the Supremacy Clause. That the California statute and the federal marketing orders embody different maturity tests is clear. However, this difference poses, rather than disposes of the problem before us. Whether a State may constitutionally reject commodities which a federal authority has certified to be marketable depends upon whether the state regulation “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. By that test, we hold that § 792 is not such an obstacle; there is neither such actual conflict between the two schemes of regulation that both cannot stand in the same area, nor evidence of a congressional design, to preempt the field.
We begin by putting.aside two suggestions of the appellants which obscure more' than aid in the solution of the problem. First, it is suggested that a federal license or certificate of compliance with minimum federal standards immunizes the licensed commerce from inconsistent or more demanding. state regulations. While this suggestion draws some support from decisions, which have invalidated direct state interference with the activities of interstate carriers, Castle v. Hayes Freight Lines, Inc., 348 U. S. 61, even in that field of paramount federal concern the suggestion has been significantly qualified, e. g., Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 447-448; Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1; cf. Bradley v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 289 U. S. 92. That no State may completely exclude federally licensed commerce is indisputable, but that principle has no application to this case.
Second, it is suggested that the coexistence of federal and state regulatory legislation should depend upon whether the purposes of the two laws are parallel or divergent. This Court has, on the one hand, sustained state statutes having objectives virtually identical to those of federal regulations, California v. Zook, 336 U. S. 725, 730-731; cf. De Veau v. Braisted, 363 U. S. 144, 156-157; Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341; and has, on the other hand, struck down state statutes where the respective purposes were quite dissimilar, First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Comm’n, 328 U. S. 152. The test of whether both federal and state regulations may operate, or the state regulation must give way, is whether both regulations c'an be enforced without impairing the federal superintendence of the field, not whether they are aimed at similar or different objectives.
The principle to be derived from our decisions is úhat federal regulation of á field of commerce should not be deemed preemptive of state regulatory power in the absence of persuasive reasons — either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or, that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained. See, e. g., Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, supra.
A.
A holding of federal exclusion of state law is inescapable and requires no inquiry.into congressional design where compliance with both federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility for one engaged in interstate commerce, cf. Union Bridge Co. v. United States, 204 U. S. 364, 399-401; Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373; Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U. S. 520. That would be the situation here if, for example, the federal orders forbade the picking and marketing of any avocado testing more than 7% oil, while the California test excluded from the State any avocado measuring less than 8% oil content. No such impossibility of dual compliance is presented on this record, however. As to those Florida avocados of the hybrid and Guatemalan varieties which were actually rejected by-the California test, the District Court indicated-that the Florida growers might have avoided such rejections by leaving the fruit on the trees beyond the earliest picking date permitted by the federal regulations, and nothing in the record contradicts that suggestion. -Nor is there a lack of evidentiary support for the District Court’s finding that the Florida varieties marketed in California “attain or exceed 8% oil content while in a prime, commercial marketing condition,” even though they may be “mature enough to be acceptable prior to the time that they reach that content....” 197 F. Supp., at 783. Thus the present record demonstrates no inevitable collision between the two schemes of regulation, despite the dissimilarity of the standards.
B.
The' issue under the head of the Supremacy Clause is narrowed then to this: Does either the nature of the subject -matter, namely the maturity of avocados, or any explicit declaration of congressional design to displace state regulation, require' § '792 to yield to the federal marketing orders? The maturity of avocados seems to be an inherently unlikely candidate for exclusive federal regulation. Certainly.it is not a subject by its very nature admitting only of national supervision, cf. Cooley v. Board of Port Wardens, 12 How. 299, 319-320. Nor is it a subject demanding exclusive federal regulation in order to achieve uniformity vital to national interests, cf. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236, 241-244.
On the contrary, the maturity of avocados is a subject matter of the kind this Court has traditionally regarded as properly within the scope of state superintendence. Specifically, the supervision of the readying of foodstuffs for market has always been deemed a matter of peculiarly local concern. Many decades ago, for example, this Court sustained a State’s prohibition against the imp'ortation of artificially colored oleomargarine (which posed no health problem), over claims of federal preemption and burden-on commerce. In the course of the opinion, the Court recognized that the States have always possessed a legitimate interest in “the protection of... [their] people against fraud and deception in the sale of food products” at retail markets within their borders. Plumley v. Massachusetts, 155 U. S. 461, 472. See also Crossman v. Lurman, 192 U. S. 189, 199-200; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497; Savage v. Jones, 225 U. S. 501, 525-529.
It is true that more recently we sustained, a federal statute broadly regulating the production of renovated butter. But we were scrupulous in pointing out that a State might nevertheless — at least in the absence of an express contrary command of Congress — confiscate or exclude from market the processed butter which had complied with all the federal processing standards, “because of a higher standard demanded by a state for its consumers.” A state regulation so purposed was, we affirmed, “permissible under all the authorities.” Cloverleaf Butter Co. v. Patterson, 315 U. S. 148, 162. That distinction is a fundamental one, which illumines and delineates the problem of the present case. Federal regulation by means of minimum standards of the picking, processing, and transportation of agricultural commodities,, however comprehensive for those purposes that regulation may be, does not of itself import displacement, of state control over the distribution and retail sale of those commodities in the interests of the consumers of the commodities within the State. Thus, while Florida may perhaps not prevent the exportation of federally certified fruit by‘superimposing a higher maturity standard, nothing in Cloverleaf forbids California to regulate their marketing. Congressional regulation of one end of the stream of commerce does not, ipso facto, oust all state regulation at the other end. Such a displacement may not be inferred automatically from the fact that Congress has regulated production and packing of commodities for the interstate market. We do not mean to suggest that certain local regulations may not unreasonably or arbitrarily burden interstate commerce; we consider that question separately, infra, pp. 152-154. Here we are concerned only whether partial congressional superintendence of the field (maturity for the purpose of introduction of Florida fruit into the stream of interstate commerce) automatically forecloses regulation of maturity by another State in the interests of. that State’s' consumers of the fruit.
The.correctness of the District Court’s conclusion that § 792 was a regulation well within the scope of California’s police powers is thus clear. While it is conceded that the California statute is not a health measure, neither logic nor precedent invites ány distinction.between state regulations designed to keep unhealthful or unsafe commodities off the grocer’s shelves, and those designed to prevent the deception of consumers. See, e. g., Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, supra; Plumley v. Massachusetts, supra. Nothing appearing in the record before us affords any ground for departure in this case from our consistent refusal to draw such a distinction.
c.
Since no irreconcilable conflict with the federal regulation requires a conclusion that § 792 was displaced, we turn to the question whether Congress has nevertheless ordained that the state regulation shall yield. The settled mandate governing this inquiry, in deference to the fact that a state regulation of this kind is an exercise of the “historic police powers of the States,” is not to decree such a federal displacement “unless that was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress,” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. In other words, we are not to conclude that Congress legislated the ouster of this California statute by the marketing orders in the absence of an unambiguous congressional mandate to that effect. We search in vain for such a mandate.
The provisions and objectives of the Agricultural Adjustment Act bear little resemblance to those in which only last Term we found a preemptive design in Campbell v. Hussey, 368 U. S. 297. In the Federal Tobacco Inspection Act involved in that case, Congress had declared “uniform standards of classification and inspection” to be “imperative for the protection of producers and others engaged in commerce and the public interest therein.” 7 U. S. C. §,511a. The legislative history was replete with references to a need for “uniform” or “official” standards, which could harmonize the grading and inspection of tobacco at all markets throughout the country. Under the. statute-a single set of standards was to be promulgated by.the Secretary of Agriculture, “and the standards so established would be the official standards of the United States for such purpose.” S. Rep. No. 1211, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 1.
Nothing in the language of the Agricultural Adjustment ■ Act — passed by the same Congress the very next day— discloses a similarly comprehensive congressional design. There is but one provision of the statute which intimates any purpose to make agricultural production controls thé monitors of retail distribution — the reference to a policy of establishing such “minimum standards of quality and maturity and such grading and inspection requirements... as will effectuate... orderly marketing... in the public interest.” 7 U. S. C. § 602 (3). That language cannot be said, without more, to reveal a design'that federal marketing orders should displace all state regulations. By its very terms, in fact, the statute purports only to establish minimum standards.
Other provisions of the Act, and their history, militate even more strongly against federal displacement of these state regulations. • First, the adoption of marketing agreements and orders is authorized only when the Secretary has determined that economic conditions within a particular growing area require federally supervised cooperation among the growers to alleviate those conditions. 7 U. S. C. § 608c (1), (2). Moreover, the relief afforded the growers is to be temporary; “the Secretary is directed to cease exercising such powers” when “the circumstances described... no longer exist.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 4.. And consistently with' these terms, the Secretary himself has characterized the marketing agreements as essentially “self-help programs” instituted and administered by the farmers involved. This view has recently been elaborated by the Secretary:
“The Act itself does not impose regulations over the marketing of any agricultural commodity. It merely provides the authority under which an industry can develop regulations to fit its own situation and solve its own marketing problems.” United States Department of Agriculture, Marketing Agreements and Orders, AMS-230 (rev. ed. 1961), 3. See also United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Adjustment 1937-1938 (1939), 71.
Second, the very terms of the statute require that the Secretary promulgate marketing orders “limited in their application to the smallest regional production areas” which he finds practicable; and the orders are.to “prescribe such different terms, applicable to different production areas and' marketing areas” as will serve to “give due recognition to the. differences in production, and marketing” between those areas. 7 U. S. C. §,608c (11). While this language is not conclusive on the question before us, it indicates that Congress contemplated — quite by contrast to the design embodied in the Tobacco Inspection Act — that there might be widespread regional variations in the standards governing production and processing. Thus avocado growers in another region could, for example, propose — and the Secretary would presumably adopt — maturity regulations which would gauge the marketability of the fruit not by the calendar, as do the South Florida rules, but by the color of the skin, or the texture and color of the seed-coat, or perhaps even by oil content. Thus if the Congress of 1935 really intended that distribution would be comprehensively governed by grower-adopted quality and maturity standards, and all state regulation of the same subject would be ousted, it does not seeni likely that the statute would have invited local variations at the production end while saying absolutely nothing about the effect of those production controls upon distribution for consumption.
A third factor which strongly suggests that Congress did not mandate uniformity for each marketing, order arises from the legislative history. The provisions concerning the limited duration and local application of marketing agreements received much attention from both House and Senate Committees reporting on the bill. Though recognizing that the powers conferred upon the Secretary were novel and extensive, both Committees concluded : “These and other restrictive provisions are... adequately drawn to guard against any fear that the regulatory power is so broad as to subject its exercise to the risk of abuse.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 7; S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 3. The Committee Reports also discussed § 10 (i), 7 U. S. C. §610(i), which authorized federal-state cooperation in the administration of the program, and cautioned significantly: '
“Notwithstanding the authorization of cooperation contained in this section, there is nothing in it to permit or require the Federal Government to invade the field of the States, for the limitations of the act and the Constitution forbid federal regulation in that field, and this provision does not indicate the contrary. Nor is there, anything in the provision to force States to cooperate. Each sovereignty operates in its own sphere but can exert its authority in conformity rather than in conflict with that of the other.” H. R. Rep. No. 1241, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 22-23; S. Rep. No. 1011, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 15.
Thus the revealed congressional design was apparently to do no more than to invite farmers and growers to get together, under the auspices of the Department of Agriculture, to work out local harvesting, packing and processing programs and thereby relieve temporarily depressed marketing conditions. Had Congress meant the Act to have in addition a pervasive effect upon the ultimate distribution and sale of produce, evidence of such a design would presumably have accompanied the statute, as it did the Tobacco Inspection Act, see Campbell v. Hussey, supra. In the absence of any such manifestations, it would be unreasonable to infer that Congress delegated to the growers in a particular region the authority to deprive the States of their traditional power to enforce otherwise valid regulations designed for the protection of consumers.
An examination of the operation of these particular marketing orders reinforces the conclusion we reach from this analysis of the terms and objectives of the statute. The regulations show that the Florida avocado maturity standards are drafted each year not by impartial experts in Washington or even in Florida, but rather by the South Florida Avocado Administrative Committee, which consists entirely of representatives of the growers, and handlers concerned. It appears that the Secretary of Agriculture has invariably adopted the Committee’s recommendations for maturity dates, sizes, and weights. Thus the pattern which emerges is one of maturity regulations drafted and administered locally by the growers’ own representatives, and designed to do no more than promote orderly competition among the South Florida growers;
This case requires no consideration of the scope of the constitutional power of Congress to oust all state regulation of maturity, and we intimate no view

Question: What is the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed?
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
Answer:

Answer: 表