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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Three cases, consolidated for hearing in the court below, raise the issue of the effect of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U. S. C. § 552, upon proceedings pending under the Renegotiation Act of 1951, c. 15, 65 Stat. 7, as amended, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1211 et seg. In particular, they concern the jurisdiction of a federal district court to enjoin the renegotiation process until an FOIA claim is resolved.
I
The three respondents, Bannercraft Clothing Company, Inc., Astro Communication Laboratory, a division of Aiken Industries, Inc., and David B. Lilly Co., Inc., successor to Delaware Fastener Corporation, all possessed national defense contracts with a “Department” of the United States, as defined in § 103 (a) of the Renegotiation Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1213 (a). These agreements, therefore, under § 102 of that Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1212, were subject to renegotiation.
A. Bannercraft. In 1966 and 1967, this respondent manufactured uniforms at a plant in Philadelphia. Its fiscal year was the calendar year. Because most of its production was subject to renegotiation, the company, for each of the two years, timely filed with the Renegotiation Board the financial statement required under § 105 (e)(1) of the Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (e)(1). Representatives of the Eastern Regional Renegotiation Board then reviewed Bannercraft’s operations and conferred with its president. On February 20, 1970, the Regional Board, by letter, advised the contractor that it was recommending that Bannercraft in 1967 had realized excessive profits in the amount of $1,400,000, subject to the usual adjustment for state taxes measured by income and for any tax credit to which the contractor was entitled under § 1481 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 1481.
Bannercraft promptly requested that it be furnished, pursuant to 32 CFR § 1477.3 (1970), with a “written summary of the facts and reasons” upon which the determination was based. It asserted, however, that “it is not possible to state [as the Regulation’s proviso required] whether all relevant evidence has been submitted since we have never had in writing the basis upon which you made this determination.” The Regional Board replied that because “the statement required by the regulation” was not submitted, “your request for a summary is defective.”
Bannercraft’s response was that it had “submitted all of the evidence which it believes to be relevant to the renegotiation proceedings,” but that this was “without prejudice to an opportunity to offer evidence on the issues disclosed by the [Regional Board's] Summary of Facts and Reasons” and that the required statement was “somewhat meaningless when we do not have a written statement of the issue upon which you have made your finding.”
On March 16, Bannercraft, pursuant to the FOIA, made a written request of the Renegotiation Board that six categories of documents be produced. No response to this request was forthcoming.
In late April, the Board, by letters, notified Banner-craft of its determinations that the contractor had realized excessive profits in the amount of $75,000 for 1966 (the same figure determined by the Regional Board) and $1,450,000 for 1967 (an increase of $50,000 over the Regional Board's determination).
Bannercraft then went to court. On May 1, it filed a complaint against the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, praying that the Board be enjoined from withholding the documents requested and from conducting any further renegotiation proceedings with Bannercraft for 1966 and 1967 until the documents were produced. The Board opposed the application for temporary relief and moved to dismiss. Judge Smith issued a temporary restraining order and, thereafter, a preliminary injunction, each without opinion, and stayed further Board proceedings.
In May, the Board issued a Statement of Facts and Reasons for Bannercraft’s years 1966 and 1967. Ban-nercraft then made a further request for documents related to the factual basis for the Board’s conclusions reflected in the Statement. In July, the Board responded. It produced some documents and, with respect to others, claimed exemption under 5 U. S. C. § 552 (b) or asserted that the information sought was not covered by the Act.
On August 4, the Board moved to dissolve the preliminary injunction. It took the position that its response to Bannercraft’s requests fulfilled its obligations under the FOIA. The District Court denied the motion. The Board then appealed.
B. Astro. This respondent’s factual case is essentially the same as Bannercraft’s. The year at issue is the fiscal year ended September 30, 1967. Astro, pursuant to the FOIA, requested production by the Board of five categories of material. At a conference held on May 12, 1970, Astro was advised that the Board had made a tentative determination of excessive profits for the year in the amount of $225,000. In July, the Board denied Astro’s FOIA request.
On August 12, Astro filed its complaint against the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. It prayed for relief similar to that sought by Bannercraft. Judge Pratt enjoined the Board from continuing renegotiation proceedings with Astro. The court also ordered the Board to allow Astro, within 30 days, to inspect and obtain copies of all documents requested by Astro that the Board had no objection to turning over, and to submit to the court, in camera, all documents the Board objected to producing, with a statement of reasons for each objection. The Board appealed.
C. Lilly. This respondent’s case is similar to the other two. In June 1970, Lilly and its predecessor in interest, Delaware Fastener Corporation, were advised by their renegotiator that he had made determinations of excessive profits for 1967 for Lilly in the amount of $200,000 and for Fastener in the amount of $500,000. On June 29, the two corporations asked the Board to furnish certain categories of information.
No response was immediately forthcoming from the Board. On July 9, Lilly filed its complaint against the Board in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, praying for an order compelling the Board to produce the documents demanded and restraining the Board from acting and, in particular, from requiring the contractors to elect a procedure until the documents had been produced and the contractors had been given a reasonable time to study them. Thereafter, the Board denied the request for information.
On July 31, Judge Jones issued an order temporarily restraining the Board from continuing renegotiation with Lilly and Delaware. Subsequently, the Board moved to dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. On September 1, a preliminary injunction was issued. The Board appealed.
The three appeals were consolidated and heard together in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, affirmed all three decisions. 151 U. S. App. D. C. 174, 466 F. 2d 345 (1972). It held that the District Court possessed jurisdiction under the FOIA to enjoin administrative proceedings before the Board and to order the production of appropriate documents. It concluded that, “although it is undeniably true that Congress was principally interested in opening administrative processes to the scrutiny of the press and general public” when it enacted the FOIA, “Congress was also troubled by the plight of those forced to litigate with agencies on the basis of secret laws or incomplete information.” Id., at 181, 466 F. 2d, at 352. The court then described this latter congressional concern as a “subsidiary statutory purpose,” citing excerpts from S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 7 (1965), and from H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1966), and also citing 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(2). See infra, at 12 n. 9. It reasoned that, despite “the fact that the Act nowhere in terms authorizes... injunctions” against agency proceedings, in enacting the statute Congress intended to confer broad equitable jurisdiction upon the district courts, and that “temporary stays of pending administrative procedures may be necessary on occasion to enforce the policy” of the FOIA. 151 U. S. App. D. C., at 181-183, 466 F. 2d, at 352-354.
The court then turned to the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies question. It observed that there is no general rule that it is always improper for a court to interfere with pending administrative proceedings, citing McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193 (1969). It concluded that “when the purposes of the doctrine are individually measured against the facts of these cases, it is plain that no legitimate judicial policy would be served by depriving these appellees of the relief they seek.” 151 U. S. App. D. C., at 184, 466 F. 2d, at 355. In effect, the court reasoned that contractors need exhaust only their administrative remedies under the FOIA, and not their administrative remedies under the Renegotiation Act, as a condition precedent to requesting injunctive relief against renegotiation proceedings. The court found the contractors’ remedies before the Board and de novo proceedings in the Court of Claims inadequate to prevent irreparable harm.
The dissenting judge began with the accepted proposition that federal courts have only limited jurisdiction and stated that the majority’s observation, to the effect that the “existence of present need for judicial intervention does have a bearing on both jurisdiction and exhaustion,” is “an error bordering on constitutional dimensions,” for the appellees’ need “is wholly irrelevant to determination of the jurisdiction of the District Courts in these cases.” Id., at 191, 466 F. 2d, at 362.
The dissent then turned to the principle that where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive. Thus, in the FOIA, Congress gave the general public an express right of access to all Federal Government information not within the exempted categories. This right was enforceable by “the specific, narrow, remedies of an injunction against withholding agency records and an affirmative order to produce such records improperly withheld.” Ibid. The dissent concluded that no jurisdiction to grant any other remedy was conferred by Congress and that the District Court, therefore, was without jurisdiction to enjoin the proceedings before the Renegotiation Board. Nothing in the congressional reports cited by the majority justified its contrary conclusion. The dissent further concluded that there was no suggestion that Congress had any concern with litigants before the administrative agencies, and that what they were concerned with was to make information available “to any member of the public without requiring any showing of need therefor.” Id., at 192, 466 F. 2d, at 363.
The dissent also was at odds with the majority’s disposition of the exhaustion issue. It asserted that the majority seriously misconstrued the intended functioning of the Renegotiation Board’s procedures, namely, that controlled access to information concerning the Government’s position plays a significant role in the administrative process; that interruption of the administrative proceedings totally destroys the balance of negotiating strength; and that the attempt to enjoin the ongoing negotiations was really not a request for relief under the FOIA but was a challenge to the Board’s procedures themselves. Id., at 194-195, 466 F. 2d, at 365-366.
We granted certiorari, 410 U. S. 907 (1973), because of the importance of the issue of the impact of the FOIA upon long-established procedures of the Renegotiation Board.
II
Before considering the issue of the District Court’s jurisdiction to enjoin a proceeding pending in the Renegotiation Board, it is helpful to review the provisions of the FOIA and of the Renegotiation Act of 1951:
A. The FOIA. This statute, 5 U. S. C. § 552, was enacted in 1966, 80 Stat. 383, as a revision of § 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U. S. C. § 1002 (1964 ed.). S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3-4 (1965); H. R, Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 1-6 (1966). It was amended by Pub. L. 90-23, adopted June 5, 1967, 81 Stat. 54. '
Section 552 (a) states, “Each agency shall make available to the public” certain information of enumerated categories. This covers virtually all information not specifically exempted by § 552 (b). Section 552 (a) (2) provides the sanction that a “final order, opinion, statement of policy, interpretation, or staff manual or instruction” may not be relied upon as precedent by the agency against a party unless “it has been indexed and either made available or published,” or unless a party has “actual and timely notice of the terms thereof.” Section 552 (a) (3) specifically vests the District Court with jurisdiction “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld.” It places the burden on the agency to sustain its action; it empowers the District Court to punish the responsible employee for contempt in the event of noncompliance; and it provides that the FOIA suit generally is to take precedence on the court's docket and is to be expedited on the calendar.
B. The Renegotiation Act of 1951. This statute, 50 U. S. C. App. §§ 1211-1233, enacted shortly after the close of World War II and at the height of the Korean conflict, recites that Congress had made available “extensive funds” for the execution of the national defense program and that “sound execution” of the program requires “the elimination of excessive profits from contracts made with the United States, and from related subcontracts.” § 101, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1211. The Renegotiation Board is established as an independent agency in the Executive Branch to accomplish this objective. § 107, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1217 (a). The Board’s functions are excluded from the operation of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U. S. C. § 551 et seq., and § 701 et seq.) except the public information section thereof (5 U. S. C. § 552). § 111, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1221.
The Board operates primarily by informal negotiation with the contractor and not by formal hearing. It is directed to “endeavor to make an agreement with the contractor... with respect to the elimination of excessive profits.” § 105 (a), 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (a). The contractor subject to the Act must file, for its fiscal year, a detailed financial statement. §105 (e)(1), 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (e)(1). On the basis of this statement an initial determination of excessive profits is made. From the date of filing of the statement, the Board has one year to commence proceedings and, with stated exceptions, the renegotiation is to be completed within two years following its commencement or “all liabilities of the contractor... for excessive profits with respect to which such proceeding was commenced shall thereupon be discharged.” § 105 (c), 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (c).
If the Board and the contractor do not agree, the Board by order determines the excessive profits. § 105 (a), 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (a). At the request of the contractor, the Board shall furnish it “with a statement of such determination, of the facts used as a basis therefor, and of its reasons for such determination.” Ibid. The contractor then may initiate a de novo proceeding in the Court of Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the contractor’s excessive profits. § 108, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1218 (1970 ed., Supp. II). The action “shall not be treated as a proceeding to review the determination of the Board,” ibid., and the Board’s statement “shall not be used in the Court of Claims as proof of the facts or conclusions stated therein,” § 105 (a), 50 U. S. C. App. § 1215 (a) (1970 ed., Supp. II).
The renegotiation process itself is initiated by notice to the contractor and by assignment of the contractor’s report to the appropriate Regional Board. 32 CFR § 1472.2 (1972). Personnel of the Regional Board then prepare a “Report of Renegotiation” which includes a “recommendation with respect to the amount, if any, of excessive profits for the fiscal year under review.” 32 CFR § 1472.3 (d). This is only the first of several steps within the agency structure. Thereafter the statement is reviewed, successively, by a panel of the Regional Board, by the Regional Board itself, and finally by the Renegotiation Board. At each level there is consultation with the contractor, the preparation of a report and analysis, and submission to the next higher level of a recommendation as to excessive profits. 32 CFR §§ 1472.3 (d) and (f)-(i), and §§ 1472.4 (b)-(d). At each stage, the contractor is entitled to a statement of the basis for the recommendation. Each level is free to make new findings and no level is bound by the determination of the level below; the recommended settlement may decrease or increase at each level. Ibid.
Ill
It is clear, we think, that the Renegotiation Board, as an entity, is not exempt from applicable provisions of the FOIA. The Board, of course, is an “independent establishment” in the Executive Branch. § 107 (a) of the Renegotiation Act, 50 U. S. C. App. § 1217 (a). But “agency” is broadly defined to mean “each authority of the Government of the United States,” except the Congress, the courts, territorial governments, the government of the District of Columbia, and, with respect to 5 U. S. C. § 552, certain other specifically described entities and functions. 5 U. S. C. §551 (1). The Renegotiation Board is not among those excepted. Further, the House Committee’s discussion of the requirement of § 552 (a)(2), that an agency’s concurring and dissenting opinions, as well as final opinions, be made available, discloses that a reason for this provision was that “a recent survey indicated that five agencies— including... the Renegotiation Board — do not make public the minority views of their members.” H. R. Rep. No; 1497, supra, at 8. Thus, despite its unique operational methods, the Board falls within the definition of “agency” in § 551 (1).
So to conclude, however, does not provide automatically the answer to the question whether the FOIA authorizes a district court to enjoin Renegotiation Board proceedings until the court determines that the contractor is or is not entitled to information it claims under the FOIA.
As to this question, the respondent contractors assert that, although the FOIA does not grant this injunctive power in express terms, the power is to be implied from the court's inherent capacity to provide appropriate equitable relief. The Board, on the other hand, emphasizes that Congress in the Act expressly authorized the court to compel the production of agency records improperly withheld, placed the burden on the agency to sustain its action, and directed precedence on the docket for suits under the Act “over all other causes” and expedition of those suits “in every way.” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(3). The Board then contends that these provisions constitute the exclusive method for enforcing the disclosure requirements of the Act and that any implication of other injunctive power, at the behest of a litigant before the agency, would be inconsistent with the statutory language.
Clearly, as the Court of Appeals held, 151 U. S. App. D. C., at 181, 466 F. 2d, at 352, the Congress “was principally interested in opening administrative processes to the scrutiny of the press and general public when it passed the Information Act.” The Second Circuit has described the Act’s “ultimate purpose” as one “to enable the public to have sufficient information in order to be able, through the electoral process, to make intelligent, informed choices with respect to the nature, scope, and procedure of federal governmental activities” (footnote omitted). Frankel v. SEC, 460 F. 2d 813, 816, cert. denied, 409 U. S. 889 (1972). The Senate Report, too, expressed concern for “an informed electorate.” S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965).
The FOIA, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(3), explicitly confers jurisdiction to grant injunctive relief of a described type, namely, “to enjoin the agency from withholding agency records and to order the production of any agency records improperly withheld from the complainant.” In addition, it provides a specific remedy for noncompliance.
This primary purpose of the FOIA, and this express grant of jurisdiction to enjoin in a specific way, coupled with a limited sanction, might suggest that the Act’s provision for compelled production was intended to be the exclusive enforcement method. It has been held that “where a statute creates a right and provides a special remedy, that remedy is exclusive.” United States v. Babcock, 250 U. S. 328, 331 (1919). And “Congress for reasons of its own decided upon the method for the protection of the 'right’ which it created. It selected the precise machinery and fashioned the tool which it deemed suited to that end.” Switchmen’s Union v. NMB, 320 U. S. 297, 301 (1943). See National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458 (1974). One therefore may argue, as the Board has argued here, that this is not a situation where “Congress has utilized... the broad equitable jurisdiction that inheres in courts and where the proposed exercise of that jurisdiction is consistent with the statutory language and policy, the legislative background and the public interest.” Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395, 403 (1946).
There is significant authority, however, that points to the opposite conclusion. Porter itself, although recognizing the kind of situation to which Babcock is applicable, 328 U. S., at 403, upheld broad equitable power in the District Court under a statute authorizing the court to grant injunctive and restraining relief “or other order,” and did so, not only because of the presence of the “other order” language, but because of the “traditional equity powers of a court.” Id., at 400. Emphasis on broad equity power, even in the face of a silent statute, also appears in Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc., 361 U. S. 288, 290-291 (1960); Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. FCC, 316 U. S. 4 (1942); Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern R. Co., 372 U. S. 658, 671 n. 22 (1963); see L. Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action 659 (1965), and is sometimes related to the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a). FTC v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U. S. 597, 603-604 (1966).
The broad language of the FOIA, with its obvious emphasis on disclosure and with its exemptions carefully delineated as exceptions; the truism that Congress knows how to deprive a court of broad equitable power when it chooses so to do, Scripps-Howard, supra, 316 U. S., at 17; and the fact that the Act, to a definite degree, makes the district courts the enforcement arm of the statute, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (3), persuade us that the Babcock and Switchmen’s Union principle of a statutorily prescribed special and exclusive remedy is not applicable to FOIA cases. With the express vesting of equitable jurisdiction in the district court by § 552 (a), there is little to suggest, despite the Act’s primary purpose, that Congress sought to limit the inherent powers of an equity court.
IY
We find it unnecessary, however, to decide in these cases, whether, or under what circumstances, it would be proper for the District Court to exercise jurisdiction to enjoin agency action pending the resolution of an asserted FOIA claim. We hold only that in a renegotiation case the contractor is obliged to pursue its administrative remedy and, when it fails to do so, may not attain its ends through the route of judicial interference. The nature of the renegotiation process mandates this result, and, were it otherwise, the effect would be that renegotiation, and its aims, would be supplanted and defeated by an FOIA suit.
Before the adoption of the FOIA this Court consistently held that the design of the Renegotiation Act was to have renegotiation proceed expeditiously without interruption for judicial review, and that the Board’s proceedings were not to be enjoined prior to the exhaustion of the administrative process. This was the result where the proceedings were challenged on constitutional grounds, Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch, 331 U. S. 752

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: 在