Which statement best describes the Supreme Court's typical method of reviewing cases—certiorari vs appeal?

Which statement best describes the Supreme Court's typical method of reviewing cases—certiorari vs appeal?

• A. The Court grants appeals as a matter of course in all cases.
• B. A writ of certiorari is a discretionary grant of review; an appeal is a right to challenge a judgment (where available), but the Supreme Court mostly uses certiorari.
• C. Both are discretionary; there is no difference.
• D. An appeal requires Supreme Court jurisdiction; certiorari can be used for lower court decisions only.

Answer: (B)

The method the Court most often uses is discretionary review through a writ of certiorari. In practice, the Court does not grant appeals as a matter of course; many cases reach the Court only after a party seeks review by petition for a writ of certiorari, and the Court selects a small number of these petitions to hear. An appeal, by contrast, is a right to challenge a judgment where such a right exists, but the Supreme Court does not rely on that route in most cases. There are narrow statutory pathways for direct appeals in limited circumstances, but the broad, everyday mechanism is certiorari. That’s why the statement describing certiorari as a discretionary grant of review and noting that the Court mostly uses certiorari is the best description of its typical method.