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. 

Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
As this school desegregation litigation enters its 18th year, we are called upon again to review the decisions of the lower courts. In this case, the State of Missouri has challenged the District Court’s order of salary increases for virtually all instructional and noninstructional staff within the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) and the District Court’s order requiring the State to continue to fund remedial “quality education” programs because student achievement levels were still “at or below national norms at many grade levels.”
I
A general overview of this litigation is necessary for proper resolution of the issues upon which we granted cer-tiorari. This case has been before the same United States District Judge since 1977. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U. S. 274, 276 (1989) (Jenkins I). In that year, the KCMSD, the school board, and the children of two school board members brought suit against the State and other defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that the State, the surrounding suburban school districts (SSD’s), and various federal agencies had caused and perpetuated a system of racial segregation in the schools of the Kansas City metropolitan area. The District Court realigned the KCMSD as a nominal defendant and certified as a class, present and future KCMSD students. The KCMSD brought a cross-claim against the State for its failure to eliminate the vestiges of its prior dual school system.
After a trial that lasted Tk months, the District Court dismissed the case against the federal defendants and the SSD’s, but determined that the State and the KCMSD were liable for an intradistrict violation, i e., they had operated a segregated school system within the KCMSD. Jenkins v. Missouri, 593 F. Supp. 1485 (WD Mo. 1984). The District Court determined that prior to 1954 “Missouri mandated segregated schools for black and white children.” Id., at 1490. Furthermore, the KCMSD and the State had failed in their affirmative obligations to eliminate the vestiges of the State’s dual school system within the KCMSD. Id., at 1504.
In June 1985, the District Court issued its first remedial order and established as its goal the “elimination of all vestiges of state imposed segregation.” Jenkins v. Missouri, 639 F. Supp. 19, 23 (WD Mo. 1985). The District Court determined that “[segregation ha[d] caused a system wide reduction in student achievement in the schools of the KCMSD.” Id., at 24. The District Court made no particularized findings regarding the extent that student achievement had been reduced or what portion of that reduction was attributable to segregation. The District Court also identified 25 schools within the KCMSD that had enrollments of 90% or more black students. Id., at 36.
The District Court, pursuant to plans submitted by the KCMSD and the State, ordered a wide range of quality education programs for all students attending the KCMSD. First, the District Court ordered that the KCMSD be restored to an AAA classification, the highest classification awarded by the State Board of Education. Id., at 26. Second, it ordered that the number of students per class be reduced so that the student-to-teacher ratio was below the level required for AAA standing. Id., at 28-29. The District Court justified its reduction in class size as
“an essential part of any plan to remedy the vestiges of segregation in the KCMSD. Reducing class size will serve to remedy the vestiges of past segregation by increasing individual attention and instruction, as well as increasing the potential for desegregative educational experiences for KCMSD students by maintaining and attracting non-minority enrollment.” Id., at 29.
The District Court also ordered programs to expand educational opportunities for all KCMSD students: full-day kindergarten; expanded summer school; before- and after-school tutoring; and an early childhood development program. Id., at 30-33. Finally, the District Court implemented a state-funded “effective schools” program that consisted of substantial yearly cash grants to each of the schools within the KCMSD. Id., at 33-34. Under the “effective schools” program, the State was required to fund programs at both the 25 racially identifiable schools as well as the 43 other schools within the KCMSD. Id., at 33.
The KCMSD was awarded an AAA rating in the 1987-1988 school year, and there is no dispute that since that time it has “‘maintained and greatly exceeded AAA requirements.’” 19 F. 3d 393, 401 (CA8 1994) (Beam, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The total cost for these quality education programs has exceeded $220 million. Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, KCMSD Total Desegregation Program Expenditures (Sept. 30, 1994) (Desegregation Expenditures).
The District Court also set out to desegregate the KCMSD but believed that “[t]o accomplish desegregation within the boundary lines of a school district whose enrollment remains 68.3% black is a difficult.task.” 639 F. Supp., at 38. Because it had found no interdistrict violation, the District Court could not order mandatory interdistrict redistribution of students between the KCMSD and the surrounding SSD’s. Ibid.; see also Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U. S. 717 (1974) (Milliken I). The District Court refused to order additional mandatory student reassignments because they would “increase the instability of the KCMSD and reduce the potential for desegregation.” 639 F. Supp., at 38. Relying on favorable precedent from the Eighth Circuit, the District Court determined that “[ajchievement of AAA status, improvement of the quality of education being offered at the KCMSD schools, magnet schools, as well as other components of this desegregation plan can serve to maintain and hopefully attract non-minority student enrollment.” Ibid.
In November 1986, the District Court approved a compre-hensivé magnet school and capital improvements plan and held the State and the KCMSD jointly and severally liable for its funding. 1 App. 130-193. Under the District Court’s plan, every senior high school, every middle school, and one-half of the elementary schools were converted into magnet schools. Id., at 131. The District Court adopted the magnet-school program to “provide a greater educational opportunity to all KCMSD students,” id., at 131-132, and because it believed “that the proposed magnet plan [was] so attractive that it would draw non-minority students from the private schools who have abandoned or avoided the KCMSD, and draw in additional non-minority students from the suburbs.” Id., at 132. The District Court felt that “[t]he long-term benefit of all KCMSD students of a greater educational opportunity in an integrated environment is worthy of such an investment.” Id., at 133. Since its inception, the magnet-school program has operated at a cost, including magnet transportation, in excess of $448 million. See Desegregation Expenditures. In April 1993, the District Court considered, but ultimately rejected, the plaintiffs’ and the KCMSD’s proposal seeking approval of a long-range magnet renewal program that included a 10-year budget of well over $500 million, funded by the State and the KCMSD on a joint-and-several basis. App. to Pet. for Cert. A-123.
In June 1985, the District Court ordered substantial capital improvements to combat the deterioration of the KCMSD’s facilities. In formulating its capital-improvements plan, the District Court dismissed as “irrelevant” the “State’s argument that the present condition of the facilities [was] not traceable to unlawful segregation.” 639 F. Supp., at 40. Instead, the District Court focused on- its responsibility to “remed[y] the vestiges of segregation” and to “implement] a desegregation plan which w[ould] maintain and attract non-minority enrollment.” Id., at 41. The initial phase of the capital-improvements plan cost $37 million. Ibid. The District Court also required the KCMSD to present further capital-improvements proposals “in order to bring its facilities to a point comparable with the facilities in neighboring suburban school districts.” Ibid. In November 1986, the District Court approved further capital improvements in order to remove the vestiges of racial segregation and “to... attract non-minority students back to the KCMSD.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-133 to A-134.
In September 1987, the District Court adopted, for the most part, KCMSD’s long-range capital-improvements plan at a cost in excess of $187 million. Jenkins v. Missouri, 672 F. Supp. 400, 408 (WD Mo. 1987). The plan called for the renovation of approximately 55 schools, the closure of 18 facilities, and the construction of 17 new schools. Id., at 405. The District Court rejected what it referred to as the “ ‘patch and repair’ approach proposed by the State” because it “would not achieve suburban comparability or the visual attractiveness sought by the Court as it would result in floor coverings with unsightly sections of mismatched carpeting and tile, and individual walls possessing different shades of paint.” Id., at 404. The District Court reasoned that “if the KCMSD schools underwent the limited renovation proposed by the State, the schools would continue to be unattractive and substandard, and would certainly serve as a deterrent to parents considering enrolling their children in KCMSD schools.” Id., at 405. As of 1990, the District Court had ordered $260 million in capital improvements. Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U. S. 33, 61 (1990) (Jenkins II) (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Since then, the total cost of capital improvements ordered has soared to over $540 million.
As part of its desegregation plan, the District Court has ordered salary assistance to the KCMSD. In 1987, the District Court initially ordered salary assistance only for teachers within the KCMSD. Since that time, however, the District Court has ordered salary assistance to all but three of the approximately 5,000 KCMSD employees. The total cost of this component of the desegregation remedy since 1987 is over $200 million. See Desegregation Expenditures.
The District Court’s desegregation plan has been described as the most ambitious and expensive remedial program in the history of school desegregation. 19 F. 3d, at 397 (Beam, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). The annual cost per pupil at the KCMSD far exceeds that of the neighboring SSD’s or of any school district in Missouri. Nevertheless, the KCMSD, which has pursued a “friendly adversary” relationship with the plaintiffs, has continued to propose ever more expensive programs. As a result, the desegregation costs have escalated and now are approaching an annual cost of $200 million. These massive expenditures have financed
“high schools in which every classroom will have air conditioning, an alarm system, and 15 microcomputers; a 2,000-square-foot planetarium; green houses and vivariums; a 25-acre farm with an air-conditioned meeting room for 104 people; a Model United Nations wired for language translation; broadcast capable radio and television studios with an editing and animation lab; a temperature controlled art gallery; movie editing and screening rooms; a 3,500-square-foot dust-free diesel mechanics room; 1,875-square-foot elementary school animal rooms for use in a zoo project; swimming pools; and numerous other facilities.” Jenkins II, 495 U. S., at 77 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Not surprisingly, the cost of this remedial plan has “far exceeded KCMSD’s budget, or for that matter, its authority to tax.” Id., at 60. The State, through the operation of joint- and-several liability, has borne the brunt of these costs. The District Court candidly has acknowledged that it has “allowed the District planners to dream” and “provided the mechanism for th[ose] dreams to be realized.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-133. In short, the District Court “has gone to great lengths to provide KCMSD with facilities and opportunities not available anywhere else in the country.” Id., at
II
With this background, we turn to the present controversy. First, the State has challenged the District Court’s requirement that it fund salary increases for KCMSD instructional and noninstructional staff. Id., at A-76 to A-93 (District Court’s Order of June 15, 1992); id., at A-94 to A-109 (District Court’s Order of June 30, 1993); id., at A-110 to A-121 (District Court’s Order of July 30,1993). The State claimed that funding for salaries was beyond the scope of the District Court’s remedial authority. Id., at A-86. Second, the State has challenged the District Court’s order requiring it to continue to fund the remedial quality education programs for the 1992-1993 school year. Id., at A-69 to A-75 (District Court’s Order of June 17, 1992). The State contended that under Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U. S. 467 (1992), it had achieved partial unitary status with respect to the quality education programs already in place. As a result, the State argued that the District Court should have relieved it of responsibility for funding those programs.
The District Court rejected the State’s arguments. It first determined that the salary increases were warranted because “[h]igh quality personnel are necessary not only to implement specialized desegregation programs intended to ‘improve educational opportunities and reduce racial isolation’, but also to ‘ensure that there is no diminution in the quality of its regular academic program.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-87 (citations omitted). Its “ruling [was] grounded in remedying the vestiges of segregation by improving the desegregative attractiveness of the KCMSD.” Id., at A-90. The District Court did not address the State’s Freeman arguments; nevertheless, it ordered the State to continue to fund the quality education programs for the 1992-1993 school year. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-70.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed. 11 F. 3d 755 (1993). It rejected the State’s argument that the salary increases did not directly address and relate to the State’s constitutional violation and that “low teacher salaries d[id] not flow from any earlier constitutional violations by the State.” Id., at 767. In doing so, it observed that “[i]n addition to compensating the victims, the remedy in this case was also designed to reverse white flight by offering superior educational opportunities.” Ibid.; see also 13 F. 3d 1170, 1172 (1993) (affirming the District Court’s June 30, 1993, and July 30, 1993, orders).
The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court implicitly had rejected the State’s Freeman arguments in spite of the fact that it had failed “to articulate... even a eonclusory rejection” of them. 11 F. 3d, at 765. It looked to the District Court’s comments from the bench and its later orders to “illuminate the June 1992 order.” Id., at 761. The Court of Appeals relied on statements made by the District Court during a May 28, 1992, hearing:
“The Court’s goal was to integrate the Kansas City, Missouri, School District to the maximum degree possible, and all these other matters were elements to be used to try to integrate the Kansas City, Missouri, schools so the goal is integration. That’s the goal. And a high standard of quality education. The magnet schools, the summer school program and all these programs are tied to that goal, and until such time as that goal has been reached, then we have not reached the goal.... The goal is to integrate the Kansas City, Missouri, School district. So I think we are wasting our time.” 2 App. 482 (emphasis added).
See 11 F. 3d, at 761. Apparently, the Court of Appeals extrapolated from the findings regarding the magnet-school program and later orders and imported those findings wholesale to reject the State’s request for a determination of partial unitary status as to the quality education programs. See id., at 761-762. It found significant the District Court’s determination that although “there had been a trend of improvement in academic achievement,... the school district was far from reaching its maximum potential because KCMSD is still at or below national norms at many grade levels.” Ibid. It went on to say that with respect to quality education, “implementation of programs in and of itself is not sufficient. The test, after all, is whether the vestiges of segregation, here the systemwide reduction in student achievement, have been eliminated to the greatest extent practicable. The success of quality of education programs must be measured by their effect on the students, particularly those who have been the victims of segregation.” Id., at 766.
The Court of Appeals denied rehearing en banc, with five judges dissenting. 19 F. 3d, at 395. The dissent first examined the salary increases ordered by the District Court and characterized “the current effort by the KCMSD and the American Federation of Teachers... aided by the plaintiffs, to bypass the collective bargaining process” as “uncalled for” and “probably not an exercise reasonably related to the constitutional violations found by the court.” Id., at 399. The dissent also “agree[d] with the [S]tate that logic d[id] not directly relate the pay of parking lot attendants, trash haulers and food handlers... to any facet or phase of the desegregation plan or to the constitutional violations.” Ibid.
Second, the dissent believed that in evaluating whether the KCMSD had achieved partial unitary status in its quality education programs, the District Court and the panel had
“misrea[d] Freeman and create[d] a hurdle to the withdrawal of judicial intervention from public education that has no support in the law. The district court has, with the approbation of the panel, imbedded a student achievement goal measured by annual standardized tests into its test of whether the KCMSD has built a high-quality educational system sufficient to remedy past discrimination. The Constitution requires no such standard.” Id., at 400.
The dissent noted that “KCMSD students have in place a system that offers more educational opportunity than anywhere in America,” id., at 403, but that the District Court was “‘not satisfied that the District has reached anywhere close to its maximum potential because the District is still at or below national norms át many grade levels,’ ” ibid, (emphasis added). The dissent concluded that this case, “as it now proceeds, involves an exercise in pedagogical sociology, not constitutional adjudication.” Id., at 404.
Because of the importance of the issues, we granted certio-rari to consider the following: (1) whether the District Court exceeded its constitutional authority when it granted salary increases to virtually all instructional and noninstructional employees of the KCMSD, and (2) whether the District Court properly relied upon the fact that student achievement test scores had failed to rise to some unspecified level when it declined to find that the State had achieved partial unitary status as to the quality education programs. 512 U. S. 1287 (1994).
Ill
Respondents argue that the State may no longer challenge the District Court’s remedy, and in any event, the propriety of the remedy is not before the Court. Brief for Respondents KCMSD et al. 40-49; Brief for Respondents Jenkins et al. 23. We disagree on both counts. In Jenkins II, we granted certiorari to review the manner in which the District Court had funded this desegregation remedy. 495 U. S., at 37. Because we had denied certiorari on the State’s challenge to review the scope of the remedial order, we resisted the State’s efforts to challenge the scope of the remedy. Id., at 53; cf. id., at 80 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Thus, we neither “approved]” nor “disapproved] the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the District Court’s remedy was proper.” Id., at 53.
Here, however, the State has challenged the District Court’s approval of across-the-board salary increases for instructional and noninstructional employees as an action beyond its remedial authority. Pet. for Cert, i. An analysis of the permissible scope of the District Court’s remedial authority is necessary for a proper determination of whether the order of salary increases is beyond the District Court’s remedial authority, see Milliken I, 418 U. S., at 738-740, 745, and thus, it is an issue subsidiary to our ultimate inquiry. Cf. Yee v. Escondido, 503 U. S. 519, 537 (1992). Given that the District Court’s basis for its salary order was grounded in “improving the desegregative attractiveness of the KCMSD,” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-90, we must consider the propriety of that reliance in order to resolve properly the State’s challenge to that order. We conclude that a challenge to the scope of the District Court’s remedy is fairly included in the question presented. See this Court’s Rule 14.1; Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 560, n. 6 (1978) (“Since consideration of these issues is essential to analysis of the Court of Appeals’ [decision] we shall also treat these questions as subsidiary issues ‘fairly comprised’ by the question presented”); see also United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 551-552, n. 5 (1980) (opinion of Stewart, J.) (Where the determination of a question “is essential to the correct disposition of the other issues in the case, we shall treat it as ‘fairly comprised’ by the questions presented in the petition for certiorari”); cf. Yee, supra, at 536-537.
Justice Souter argues that our decision to review the scope of the District Court’s remedial authority is both unfair and imprudent. Post, at 147. He claims that factors such as our failure to grant certiorari on the State’s challenge to the District Court’s remedial authority in 1988 “lulled [respondents] into addressing the case without sufficient attention to the foundational issue, and their lack of attention has now infected the Court’s decision.” Post, at 139. Justice Souter concludes that we have “decide[d] the issue without any warning to respondents.” Post, at 147. These arguments are incorrect.
Of course, “[t]he denial of a writ of certiorari imports no expression of opinion upon the merits of the case, as the bar has been told many times.” United States v. Carver, 260 U. S. 482, 490 (1923). A fortiori, far from lulling respondents into a false sense of security, our previous decision in Jenkins v. Missouri put respondents on notice that the Court had not affirmed the validity of the District Court’s remedy, 495 U. S., at 53, and that at least four Justices of the Court questioned that remedy, id., at 75-80 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
With respect to the specific orders at issue here, the State has once again challenged the scope of the District Court’s remedial authority. The District Court was aware of this fact. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-86 (“The State claims that the Court should not approve desegregation funding for salaries because such funding would be beyond the scope of the Court’s remedial authority”) (District Court’s June 25, 1992, order); id., at A-97 (“The State has argued repeatedly and currently on appeal that the salary component is not a valid component of the desegregation remedy”) (District Court’s June 30, 1993, order). The Court of Appeals also understood that the State had renewed this challenge. See 11 F. 3d, at 766 (“The State argues first that the salary increase remedy sought exceeded that necessary to remedy the constitutional violations, and alternatively, that if the district court had lawful authority to impose the increases, it abused its discretion in doing so”); id., at 767 (“The State’s legal argument is that the district court should have denied the salary increase funding because it is contrary to Milliken [v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267 (1977),] and Swann [v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Ed., 402 U. S. 1 (1971),] in that it does not directly address and relate to the State’s constitutional violation”); 13 F. 3d, at 1172 (“We reject the State’s argument that the salary order is contrary to Milliken II and Swann”). The State renewed this same challenge in its petition for certiorari, Pet. for Cert, i, and argued here that the District Court’s salary orders were beyond the scope of its remedial authority. Brief for Petitioners 27-32; Reply Brief for Petitioners 6-12. In the 100 pages of briefing provided by respondents, they have argued that the State’s challenge to the scope of the District Court’s remedial authority is not fairly presented and is meritless. See Brief for Respondents KCMSD et al. 40-49; Brief for Respondents Jenkins et al. 2-21, 44-49; cf. Reply Brief for Petitioners 2 (“[Respondents... urge the Court to dismiss the writ as improvidently granted. This is not surprising; respondents cannot defend the excesses of the courts below”).
In short, the State has challenged

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: 间