Etydhv

When the United State Congress and the President are involved in a legal fight together, the resulting legal case originates in a US District Court for DC, as was the case for United States v. Nixon. The same seems to be occurring today, with President Trumps's lawsuit against Rep. Elijah Cummings (that lawsuit is technically leveled at a member of Congress rather than Congress itself, but would likely still apply since the suit specifies Cummings is acting in his official capacity as Chairman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee).

Why are these lawsuits between the highest level of each branch of government not instantly heard by the Supreme Court, instead being relegated to lower courts to work up the ladder as if it were a typical court case?

Article III, Section 2,

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, [...]

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Because the demand by Chairperson Cummings, is based on the Laws of the United States, the Supreme Court only has appellate Jurisdiction.

To change that would seem to require a Constitutional Amendment.

Remember that SCOTUS is an appeals court, not a regular circuit court. You don't generally file with SCOTUS at first, you start in a Federal circuit (or state court), then work your way up.

The purpose of a lower court is to establish things before the court as a whole. This is where you generally get all the "grunt work" out of the way. You need to present arguments, evidence, prior law, etc. All of this is cumbersome. You also argue before a single judge at this level, and may or may not have a jury.

When you move into appeals things change.

The appellate court’s task is to determine whether or not the law was applied correctly in the trial court. Appeals courts consist of three judges and do not use a jury.

Appeals circuits and SCOTUS are there to adjudicate if

• A mistake was made at trial


• A precedent needs to be set


• You have conflicting rulings

SCOTUS is very picky on what cases it will and won't take, often based on the the precedent set in the case. In the aforementioned United States v. Nixon, the question wasn't about Nixon himself, but if a sitting President could ignore a Federal Court subpoena (in this case for the Watergate Tapes) by invoking Executive Privilege to avoid embarrassment or cover criminal conduct. SCOTUS ruled that he could not. While it likely would have lead to Nixon's impeachment, the full case about Watergate was not in question, only this part of the process (turning over evidence due to a subpoena).

Two reasons:

1. Sometimes precedent is enough for lower courts to rule on or throw out a case directly.




2. SCOTUS reserves the right to (and indeed, does) not bother taking on cases that it's not interested in.

In case you're from outside the US, this indeed contrasts with what happens in other countries. Oftentimes, the High Court must take on whatever is sent its way.