How long is the appeals process in the US Supreme Court?

Answer 1

When the US Supreme Court reviews a case under its appellate jurisdiction, the total time allocated for oral arguments (what would correspond to a trial in a District Court) is one hour, or 30 minutes for each side. For the most part, the Justices review the case records and lower Court opinions. Appellate Justices are not finders of fact; they don't make decisions based on material evidence, but on how appropriately the lower court judges applied the law.

According to published articles and the Court's own records, it takes about six weeks from the receipt of a petition for a writ of certiorari to a decision about whether to hear the case, and about six months total to prepare for oral arguments.

Once a case is heard, emergency cases are usually decided in a few days; non-emergent cases may take anywhere from three to thirty weeks before the Justices release a decision, although the verdict in most is determined in 14-16 weeks.

When the Supreme Court hears a case under its original jurisdiction (for example, in a dispute between two states), the case is initially reviewed by a Special Master who then makes a recommendation to the Court. This allows for some semblance of an appellate process.

Answer 2

None, really. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States; there is no other forum with jurisdiction to hear an appeal on a Supreme Court decision. Also, the justices' decisions are considered Res Judicata, meaning legally finalized and binding.

Having said that, on very rare occasions the Supreme Court will grant a petition to rehear a case it has already decided, or will reverse a decision to deny certiorari for a case already reviewed. This is entirely at the Court's discretion, and requires a vote of five justices (rather than the usual four) in order for certiorari to be granted on a rehearing.

Some factors that may lead to rehearing include discovery of misrepresentation in the earlier case, or a change in circumstances that compels a second look.

The Court is currently (2009) considering a rehearing on writs of habeas corpus previously denied Guantanamo detainees, on the basis of evidence suggesting the current tribunal trails are a farce and are violating constitutional due process.