Screening Criteria in the United States

The bases upon which appeals courts decide which cases to review. Screening criteria are most critical for those appellate courts with discretionary jurisdiction, but screening is important for courts having mandatory review as well. In the latter instance, screening is necessary to determine whether abbreviated procedures should be used. These judgments are based on considerations similar to those used by courts not required to grant review. The most important criterion is the importance of the policy issue(s) or law question(s) raised by the case. If the case will have consequences for many people, or raises a new question, or represents a constitutional challenge to a major legislative enactment, the chances of a court’s deciding to review the case are increased. Some cases are selected because they advance the policy preferences of individual judges. This element is often key to the assessment of case importance. Second, courts consider the extent to which there is conflict of interpretation between or among lower courts. Courts with discretionary jurisdiction often seek to further the cause of consistency by rendering a decision that will resolve conflicting lower court rulings. Third, courts consider the parties involved, particularly the party pursuing review. Certain interest groups are themselves selective about cases they choose to sponsor or join. Group attachment to a question may signal the importance of that issue to a court. Similarly, if the federal government is party to a suit, the case is more likely to be accepted for review. Finally, appellate courts will be more likely to review cases where they suspect a lower court has erred in its judgment.

See Also

certiorari, 261; Discretionary Jurisdiction (Apellate Judicial Process).

Analysis and Relevance

The screening of cases for appellate review serves several purposes, and the criteria used are tailored to further those ends. Some criteria are used to service technical needs. Jurisdictional and standing requirements, for example, are examined. No case will be accepted if it fails to establish those threshold conditions. In addition to policy priorities, screening criteria allow the court to implement particular role orientations or interpretive approaches. An appellate judge who subscribes to the self-restraint view will screen cases accordingly. It may also be possible to screen in such a way as to avoid, at least for the short term, handling highly controversial issues. The delay may produce a legislative response to the problem, a preferred outcome for the advocate of self-restraint.

Notes and References

1. Definition of Screening Criteria from the American Law Dictionary, 1991, California