Supreme Court of the United States · 1956 · Constitutional Law
Constitutional LawFederal Question JurisdictionSupreme Court Procedureproperly presented federal questionmotion to recall mandateoral argument deniedSupreme Court reviewstate court response
Facts
The Supreme Court had previously issued an order on November 14, 1955, to which the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia responded in a decision dated January 18, 1956. Following that state-court response, a motion was made in the Supreme Court to recall the mandate and place the case on the merits calendar for oral argument, or alternatively to recall and amend the mandate. The Supreme Court evaluated the Virginia court's January 18, 1956 decision for whether a federal question was properly presented. The Court concluded that the case, as left by the Virginia court's response, contained no properly presented federal question.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court should recall its mandate and set the case for oral argument on the merits, or recall and amend the mandate, when the state court's decision in response to the Court's earlier order leaves the case devoid of a properly presented federal question.
Rule
The Supreme Court will deny merits-related relief, including recalling a mandate for oral argument on the merits or amending the mandate, when the state court decision leaves the case devoid of a properly presented federal question.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
After a dispute in Columbus, Ohio, Lena Ortiz appealed from the highest court of Ohio to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had previously issued an order, and the Ohio court then entered a new decision clarifying its grounds; that new decision left no federal issue properly presented in the record. Lena now moves to recall the mandate and place the appeal on the merits calendar for oral argument.
How should the Supreme Court rule on Lena's motion?
Explanation. The controlling rule is procedural: if the state court's post-order decision leaves the case devoid of a properly presented federal question, the Supreme Court will deny merits-related relief. That includes a motion to recall the mandate and set the case for oral argument on the merits. The Court does not proceed to merits review when no properly presented federal question remains. (Derived from Naim v. Naim (1956).)