Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Court Information
Justices: 7
Founded: 1722
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Salary
Associates: $253,361
Judicial Selection
Method: Partisan election
Term: 10 years
Active justices
Kevin Brobson, Christine Donohue, Kevin M. Dougherty, Daniel D. McCaffery, Sallie Mundy, Debra Todd, David Wecht

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Debra Todd. The court was established by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1722 as a successor to the Provincial Court established in 1684. It is the oldest appellate court in the United States.

As of January 2024, five judges on the court were elected in partisan elections as Democrats and two judge were elected as Republicans.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court meets in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania, state supreme court justices are elected in partisan elections. There are eight states that use this selection method. To read more about the partisan election of judges, click here.

Jurisdiction

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has original but not exclusive jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus, mandamus, and quo warranto. It hears discretionary appeals from the Pennsylvania Superior Court and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, and it hears certain direct appeals from the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. The court can assume jurisdiction over any case in the Pennsylvania court system.

The supreme court has the power to prescribe general rules for practice, procedure, and conduct of all courts. It also supervises the entire state judicial system. The supreme court is granted the power to regulate the practice of attorneys and their admission into the practice.

The jurisdiction of the court is covered in Title 42, Chapter 7, Subchapter B of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes.

The following text from Article V, Section 2 of the Pennsylvania Constitution addresses the jurisdiction of the court:

“	Supreme Court The Supreme Court (a) shall be the highest court of the Commonwealth and in this court shall be reposed the supreme judicial power of the Commonwealth; (b) shall consist of seven justices, one of whom shall be the Chief Justice; and (c) shall have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.	”
—Pennsylvania Constitution Article V, Section 2

Justices

The table below lists the current justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, their political party, and when they assumed office.

Office	Name	Party	Date assumed office
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Kevin Brobson	Republican	January 3, 2022
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Christine Donohue	Democratic	January 8, 2016
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Kevin M. Dougherty	Democratic	January 5, 2016
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Daniel D. McCaffery	Democratic	January 2, 2024
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Sallie Mundy	Republican	2016
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Debra Todd	Democratic	2008
Pennsylvania Supreme Court	David Wecht	Democratic	January 7, 2016

Judicial selection

See also: Judicial selection in Pennsylvania

The seven justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are selected in partisan elections.

Justices serve 10-year terms, after which they must run in yes-no retention elections if they wish to remain on the court. A separate part of the ballot is designated for these elections, and justices' names appear without respect to party affiliation. To learn more about these elections, visit the Pennsylvania judicial elections page.

Qualifications

To serve on the supreme court, a justice must:

• have state residence for at least one year;
• be a member of the state bar; and
• be under the age of 75.

Chief justice

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court chooses its chief justice by seniority; the title is held by the longest-serving justice on the court.

Vacancies

See also: How vacancies are filled in state supreme courts

In the event of a midterm vacancy, the governor appoints a successor who must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Pennsylvania Senate. Interim justices stand for election at the next municipal election occurring more than 10 months after the vacancy occurred.

By tradition, appointed interim judges of the supreme court, superior court, or court of appeals do not go on to run for permanent seats. In other words, the governor appoints these judges with the expectation that the judge will only fill the interim vacancy.

The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.

Elections

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections

2025

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2025

The terms of three Pennsylvania Supreme Court justices will expire on January 4, 2026. The three seats are up for retention election on November 4, 2025. The last day to file for retention was January 6, 2025.

Judges with expiring terms

This is a list of the justices who must stand for retention election in 2025 in order to remain on the bench. Justices may choose not to stand for election. The list is subject to change if justices retire or are appointed.

■ Christine Donohue
■ David N. Wecht
■ Kevin M. Dougherty

2023

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2023

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice vacancy (September 2022)

General election

General election for Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Daniel D. McCaffery defeated Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio in the general election for Pennsylvania Supreme Court on November 7, 2023.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Daniel D. McCaffery (D)	53.5	1,652,113
		Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio (R)	46.5	1,434,945

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 3,087,058
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Democratic primary election

Democratic primary for Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Daniel D. McCaffery defeated Deborah A. Kunselman in the Democratic primary for Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 16, 2023.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Daniel D. McCaffery	60.2	633,845
		Deborah A. Kunselman	39.8	419,090

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 1,052,935
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Republican primary election

Republican primary for Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio defeated Patricia McCullough in the Republican primary for Pennsylvania Supreme Court on May 16, 2023.

		Candidate	%	Votes
✔		Carolyn Tornetta Carluccio	53.6	441,413
		Patricia McCullough	46.4	382,512

---

	There were no incumbents in this race. The results have been certified. Source	Total votes: 823,925
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
If you are a candidate and would like to tell readers and voters more about why they should vote for you, complete the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection Survey.
Do you want a spreadsheet of this type of data? Contact our sales team.

Justices not on the ballot

• Max Baer (D)

2021

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2021

Candidates and results

Saylor's seat

General election candidates

• Maria McLaughlin  (Democratic Party)
• Kevin Brobson  (Republican Party) ✔

 Democratic primary candidates

• Maria McLaughlin ✔

Did not make the ballot:

• Carolyn H. Nichols

 Republican primary candidates

• Kevin Brobson ✔
• Patricia McCullough
• Paula A. Patrick

Justices not on the ballot

• Thomas Saylor (R)

2017

Candidates

Justices facing retention

■ Thomas Saylor (R)
■ Debra Todd (D)

Partisan election, Mundy's seat

■ Sallie Mundy (R) (Incumbent)
■ Dwayne D. Woodruff

2015

See also: Pennsylvania Supreme Court elections, 2015

Candidates and results

Three seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were up for election in 2015—the most the court had ever seen in one election year.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Three seats, General Election, 2015
Party		Candidate	Vote %	Votes
	Democratic	Kevin M. Dougherty	18.5%	1,079,835
	Democratic	David N. Wecht	18.4%	1,070,568
	Democratic	Christine Donohue	18.2%	1,059,167
	Republican	Judith Olson	15.2%	887,409
	Republican	Michael A. George	13.6%	796,124
	Republican	Anne Covey	13.6%	795,330
	Independent Judicial Alliance	Paul P. Panepinto	2.5%	144,403
		Write-in votes	0%	0
Total Votes				5,832,836
Source: Pennsylvania Department of State, "Unofficial General Election Results," November 3, 2015

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Three seats, Republican Primary, 2015
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
Judith Olson	22.1%	177,199
Michael A. George	21.7%	173,683
Anne Covey	20.2%	161,680
Cheryl Lynn Allen	13.9%	111,112
Rebecca L. Warren	11.7%	93,688
Correale Stevens Incumbent	10.5%	83,815
Write-in votes	0%	0
Total Votes		801,177
Source: Pennsylvania Department of State, "2015 Municipal Primary Unofficial Results," May 19, 2015

Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Three seats, Democratic Primary, 2015
Candidate	Vote %	Votes
David N. Wecht	22.1%	256,761
Kevin M. Dougherty	22.0%	256,048
Christine Donohue	21.4%	248,325
Anne Lazarus	16.3%	189,127
Dwayne D. Woodruff	11.7%	136,127
John H. Foradora	6.6%	76,190
Write-in votes	0%	0
Total Votes		1,162,578
Source: Pennsylvania Department of State, "2015 Municipal Primary Unofficial Results," May 19, 2015

Justices not on the ballot

• Chief Justice Ronald Castille retired due to reaching the age of mandatory retirement.
• Justice Correale Stevens's temporary term to replace criminally convicted former Justice Joan Orie Melvin expired.
• Justice Seamus P. McCaffery retired in October 2014 amidst misconduct allegations.

• Election history, 2011-2013 (click to expand)

  2013

  See also: Pennsylvania judicial elections, 2013

  Retention

  Judge	Retention vote	Retention Vote %
  CastilleRonald Castille   A		68.5%A
  BaerMax Baer   A		71.0%A

  2011

  See also: Pennsylvania judicial elections, 2011

  The following is a list of candidates for the Supreme Court 2011 election:

  Candidate	Incumbency	District	Primary Vote	Election Vote
  EakinJ. Michael Eakin   A	Yes	District 2, Division D		A

Caseloads

The table below details the number of cases filed and adjudicated from the appeals, capital, and miscellaneous dockets. As of September 2024, data more recent than 2019 was not available online.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court caseload data
Year	Filings	Adjudications
2019	634	626
2018	695	682
2017	676	678
2016	735	609
2015	609	693‬
2014	716‬	766‬
2013	694	720‬
2012	750	901‬
2011	740‬	655
2010	706	684
2009	699	702
2008	729	742‬

Analysis

Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters, a study on how state supreme court justices decided the cases that came before them. Our goal was to determine which justices ruled together most often, which frequently dissented, and which courts featured the most unanimous or contentious decisions.

The study tracked the position taken by each state supreme court justice in every case they decided in 2020, then tallied the number of times the justices on the court ruled together. We identified the following types of justices:

• We considered two justices opinion partners if they frequently concurred or dissented together throughout the year.
• We considered justices a dissenting minority if they frequently opposed decisions together as a -1 minority.
• We considered a group of justices a determining majority if they frequently determined cases by a +1 majority throughout the year.
• We considered a justice a lone dissenter if he or she frequently dissented alone in cases throughout the year.

Summary of cases decided in 2020

• Number of justices: 7
• Number of cases: 116
• Percentage of cases with a unanimous ruling: 43.1% (50)
• Justice most often writing the majority opinion: Justices Saylor and Donohue (20)
• Per curiam decisions: 0
• Concurring opinions: 62
• Justice with most concurring opinions: Justice Wecht (26)
• Dissenting opinions: 46
• Justice with most dissenting opinions: Justice Saylor (13)

For the study's full set of findings in Pennsylvania, click here.

Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship (2020)

See also: Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship

Last updated: June 15, 2020

In 2020, Ballotpedia published Ballotpedia Courts: State Partisanship, a study examining the partisan affiliation of all state supreme court justices in the country as of June 15, 2020.

The study presented Confidence Scores that represented our confidence in each justice's degree of partisan affiliation, based on a variety of factors. This was not a measure of where a justice fell on the political or ideological spectrum, but rather a measure of how much confidence we had that a justice was or had been affiliated with a political party. To arrive at confidence scores we analyzed each justice's past partisan activity by collecting data on campaign finance, past political positions, party registration history, as well as other factors. The five categories of Confidence Scores were:

• Strong Democrat
• Mild Democrat
• Indeterminate
• Mild Republican
• Strong Republican

We used the Confidence Scores of each justice to develop a Court Balance Score, which attempted to show the balance among justices with Democratic, Republican, and Indeterminate Confidence Scores on a court. Courts with higher positive Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Republican Confidence Scores, while courts with lower negative Court Balance Scores included justices with higher Democratic Confidence Scores. Courts closest to zero either had justices with conflicting partisanship or justices with Indeterminate Confidence Scores.

Pennsylvania had a Court Balance Score of -4.71, indicating Democrat control of the court. In total, the study found that there were 15 states with Democrat-controlled courts, 27 states with Republican-controlled courts, and eight states with Split courts. The map below shows the court balance score of each state.

Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores (2012)

See also: Bonica and Woodruff campaign finance scores of state supreme court justices, 2012

In October 2012, political science professors Adam Bonica and Michael Woodruff of Stanford University attempted to determine the partisan outlook of state supreme court justices in their paper, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns." A score above 0 indicated a more conservative-leaning ideology while scores below 0 were more liberal. The state Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was given a campaign finance score (CFscore), which was calculated for judges in October 2012. At that time, Pennsylvania received a score of -0.02. Based on the justices selected, Pennsylvania was the 24th most liberal court. The study was based on data from campaign contributions by judges themselves, the partisan leaning of contributors to the judges, or—in the absence of elections—the ideology of the appointing body (governor or legislature). This study was not a definitive label of a justice but rather an academic gauge of various factors.

Noteworthy cases

The following are noteworthy cases heard before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. For a list of opinions published by the court, click here. Know of a case we should cover here? Let us know by emailing us.

• Court rules on undated and wrong dated mail ballots	Click for summary→
On February 8, 2023, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling that said that undated or mis-dated absentee/mail-in ballots should not be counted under state law. Justice David N. Wecht wrote the majority opinion, which said the dating requirement spelled out in state law was clear—for absentee or mail-in ballots to count, they must be dated with the date voters completed them. The opinion said that undated and wrongly dated absentee and mail-in ballots should be rejected in future elections, and it confirmed that individual county boards of elections “retain authority to evaluate the ballots that they receive in future elections.” On October 17, 2022, the Republican National Committee and the Pennsylvania Republican Party filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent counties from counting undated and wrongly dated absentee and mail-in ballots. On November 5, 2022, the court issued a preliminary order, saying that mail-in ballots were to be rejected for the November 8 midterm election if the handwritten date was before September 19 or after November 8, and absentee ballots were to be rejected if the date was before August 30 or after November 8.

• Court overturns sexual assault conviction for Bill Cosby	Click for summary→
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned a 2018 sexual assault conviction for comedian and actor Bill Cosby. The court ruled that a non-prosecution agreement with another prosecutor should have resulted in a lack of charges for Cosby. He had served three years of his three- to 10-year sentence when he was released.

• Court reverses lower court order that had halted 2020 general election results certification, thus allowing certification to proceed	Click for summary→
On November 21, 2020, a group of state Republican officials, candidates, and voters filed suit in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, alleging that the state law allowing all voters to cast their ballots by mail violated the state constitution. The plaintiffs asked the court either to order election officials "to certify the results of the election based solely on the legal votes" or to direct "that the Pennsylvania General Assembly choose Pennsylvania's [presidential] electors." On November 25, 2020, Judge Patricia McCullough ordered election officials to temporarily halt "any further action to perfect the certification of the results of the 2020 general election ... for the offices of President and Vice President," pending an evidentiary hearing scheduled for November 27, 2020. State officials appealed McCullough's order to the state supreme court. On November 28, 2020, the state supreme court ruled unanimously to vacate McCullough's order and dismiss the case with prejudice. In its unsigned opinion, the court wrote the following: “ The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election and the final ballots in the 2020 general election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters. ” Sean Parnell, a Republican congressional candidate who was a party to the lawsuit, said he and the other plaintiffs would appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On December 1, 2020, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to temporarily block the state supreme court's order pending appeal. However, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew this application, and on December 2, 2020, they petitioned the state supreme court to stay its decision pending a determination by the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it would take up the case. The state supreme court declined to stay its decision on December 3, 2020. In light of the state supreme court's December 3, 2020, order, the plaintiffs again petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the state supreme court's ruling. Associate Justice Samuel Alito, the justice assigned to consider emergency applications from the Third Circuit (which contains Pennsylvania), directed the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs' filing by 9 a.m. on December 8, 2020. Alito referred the matter to the full court, which, on December 8, 2020, declined to take up the case. The court made its decision without noted dissent.

• Court strikes retroactive increase in sex offender registration periods	Click for summary→
In Commonwealth v. Muniz, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that Pennsylvania’s Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) could not apply retroactively to a defendant who was found guilty of a sex crime before the legislation took effect. Pennsylvania law previously required those convicted of a sex crime to register with the state for a period of time. SORNA increased the lengths of the registration periods. SORNA applied to, among others, “those who were required to register under previous versions…and had not yet fulfilled their registration period as of the effective date of SORNA.” Under the previous law, the defendant in Muniz would have been required to register for 10 years; under SORNA, which took effect after his crime and conviction, he was required to register for his lifetime. The defendant argued that allowing SORNA’s enhanced registration periods to apply retroactively violated the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal constitutions. A majority of the court agreed. In an opinion authored by Justice Kevin M. Dougherty, the court noted that the ex post facto clauses of the federal and Pennsylvania constitutions entitled the public to “‘fair warning’ about what constitutes criminal conduct, and what the punishments for that conduct entail.” In other words, the state may not punish a defendant beyond what the law allowed at the time of his or her crime. The state contended that registration on a sex offender list was merely a civil requirement, not a punishment, and therefore did not fall within the meaning of the clause. The court disagreed. Concluding that registration on the sex offender list did constitute a punishment, the court ruled that retroactive application of SORNA’s registration requirements violated the federal and state ex post facto laws. Justices David N. Wecht and Debra Todd concurred in the majority’s judgment but wrote a separate concurring opinion. Chief Justice Thomas Saylor dissented from the judgment. He argued that registration was not a punishment and that therefore SORNA’s retroactive application of longer registration periods did not violate either the state or federal ex post facto clause. Justice Sallie Mundy did not participate in the decision.

• PA Supreme Court overturns provisions of state shale drilling law	Click for summary→
On December 19, 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that certain provisions of the state's Marcellus Shale drilling law, Act 13, were unconstitutional. This decision struck down the section of the 2012 law that allowed gas companies to drill anywhere, ignoring local zoning laws. It also sent back to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court a challenge against a provision in the law preventing doctors from informing patients of the health risks related to shale gas drilling. Act 13 established regulations for natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania. "Fracking" is the term used to describe hydraulic fracturing, which is a way to mine natural gas from shale rock layers in the earth. This process allows companies to access natural gas that was previously unreachable. Maya van Rossum, the executive director of the Delaware Riverkeeper Network, stood as a plaintiff in the case, along with other individuals and municipalities. She believed the ruling made a strong political statement that would go beyond the specific provision in question. She said, "With this huge win we will move ahead to further undo the industry's grip of our state government." Pennsylvania Representative Jesse White opposed Act 13. He said of the supreme court ruling: “ A clear message has been sent to Gov. Corbett and his friends in the energy industry: Our fundamental constitutional principles cannot be auctioned off to wealthy special interests in exchange for campaign dollars. On this day, David has defeated Goliath. ” Governor Tom Corbett, who signed the legislation into law, said he was disappointed by the ruling. In his statement, he said, “ We must not allow today’s ruling to send a negative message to job creators and families who depend on the energy industry. I will continue to work with members of the House and Senate to ensure that Pennsylvania’s thriving energy industry grows and provides jobs while balancing the interests of local communities. ” In the majority of the 4-2 ruling were Chief Justice Ronald Castille, Justices Debra Todd, Seamus P. McCaffery, and Max Baer. Justices Thomas Saylor and J. Michael Eakin wrote dissenting opinions. The majority opinion stated that "several challenged provisions of Act 13 are unconstitutional" and that "the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale Formation will produce a detrimental effect on the environment, on the people, their children, and the future generations, and potentially on the public purse, perhaps rivaling the environmental effects of coal extraction."

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

2025-2026 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

The following case was scheduled for argument before the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2025-2026 term.

2025-2026 Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Galette v. New Jersey Transit Corporation	TBA	TBA	TBA

2022-2023 term

See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2022-2023

The following cases were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court during the 2022-2023 term.

2022-2023 Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Case	Opinion author	Decision	Vote
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.	Neil Gorsuch	vacated and remanded	5-4

Ethics

The Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct sets forth ethical guidelines and principles for the conduct of judges and judicial candidates in Pennsylvania. It is composed of seven canons:

• Canon 1: "A judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety."
• Canon 2: "A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently, and diligently."
• Canon 3: "A judge shall conduct the judge’s personal and extrajudicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with the obligations of judicial office."
• Canon 4: "A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality of the judiciary."

The full text of the Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct can be found here.

Removal of judges

Judges in Pennsylvania may be removed in one of two ways:

• By the court of judicial discipline, which hears formal charges from the judicial conduct board if the board finds probable cause to file charges
• Impeachment by the house of representatives, plus conviction by two-thirds of the senate

History of the court

The Pennsylvania state capitol in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, which houses the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

According to the Pennsylvania Judicial Branch, courts in Pennsylvania before 1700 were "a disparate collection of local, part-time courts inherited from the reign of the Duke of York and established by William Penn." There was no court of final appeal. Efforts to create a court of final appeal failed until 1722. The Judiciary Act of 1722 established the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 67 years before the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States. It also created courts of common pleas in several counties. The supreme court had three justices, commissioned by the governor, who were empowered with issuing writs of Habeas Corpus, Certiorari, and Writ of error. The supreme court served as a superior trial court. Judges were required to try capital offenses, and they were empowered with an appellate function for all lower courts. The court was also required to ride circuit twice per year.

Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution did not change the structure of the supreme court, but it established the court of sessions, courts of common pleas, and orphans courts in every county.

A new constitution in 1790, after statehood in 1787, grouped counties into judicial districts and placed presiding judges as the heads of the common pleas courts. This was meant to ease the workload of the supreme court. Circuit courts were abolished in 1834, relieving the supreme court of its circuit duties, and making them a court primarily of judicial review. The supreme court, however, was required to travel as an appellate court, holding terms in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Harrisonburg. This continues to the present.

The 1874 constitution created many changes for the supreme court. It required popular election of supreme court justices and increased the number of justices from five to seven, also increasing their tenure to 21 years. This constitution gave the supreme court appellate jurisdiction over the state, original jurisdiction to issue writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus to lower courts, and the writ of Quo warranto for all statewide commonwealth officers. In 1895, the legislature created the superior court to ease the workload of the supreme court.

The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1968 provided a new judiciary article. It unified the court system with the supreme court at its head. Previously, the 66 counties each operated their own court system and their own budget. The new constitution gave the supreme court broad rulemaking powers to govern the procedures and conduct of all state courts. As a result of the new constitution, the supreme court was given certain original jurisdiction over cases of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, and Quo warranto. Appeal jurisdiction was expanded to include appeals from the courts of common pleas in felonious homicide and right to public office; Orphans court cases, commonwealth court cases, certain equity actions; certain contempt proceedings in the court of common pleas; suspension or disbarment of attorneys; matters where commonwealth indebtedness is in question; and certain U.S. constitutional, treaty, and home rule matters. The 1968 constitution also provided that the seven supreme court justices will now serve ten-year terms and be elected through a judicial selection plan and retention elections.

In 1980, the legislature approved a decrease in the supreme courts mandated jurisdiction by increasing the jurisdiction of the superior court. This allowed the supreme court discretion in accepting or rejecting appeals and eased its workload, allowing the court to focus greater attention on specific cases.

Courts in Pennsylvania

See also: Courts in Pennsylvania

In Pennsylvania, there are three federal district courts, state supreme court, a superior court, a commonwealth court, and trial courts with both general and limited jurisdiction. These courts serve different purposes, which are outlined in the sections below.

Click a link for information about that court type.

• Federal courts
• State supreme court
• State courts of appeal
• Trial courts

The image below depicts the flow of cases through Pennsylvania's state court system. Cases typically originate in the trial courts and can be appealed to courts higher up in the system.

The structure of Pennsylvania's state court system.

Party control of Pennsylvania state government

A state government trifecta is a term that describes single-party government, when one political party holds the governor's office and has majorities in both chambers of the legislature in a state government. A state supreme court plays a role in the checks and balances system of a state government.

Pennsylvania has a divided government where neither party holds a trifecta. The Democratic Party controls the office of governor and the lower chamber of the state legislature, while the Republican Party controls the upper chamber of the state legislature.

See also

Pennsylvania	Judicial Selection	More Courts
Courts in Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Pennsylvania Superior Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court	Elections: 2025 • 2024 • 2023 • 2022 • 2021 • 2020 • 2019 • 2018 • 2017 Gubernatorial appointments Judicial selection in Pennsylvania	Federal courts State courts Local courts

External links

Suggest a link

• Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Footnotes

Pennsylvania courts

---

Federal courts:

Third Circuit Court of Appeals • U.S. District Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Pennsylvania • U.S. Bankruptcy Court: Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Middle District of Pennsylvania, Western District of Pennsylvania

State courts:

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania • Pennsylvania Superior Court • Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court • Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas • Pennsylvania Magisterial Districts

State resources:

Courts in Pennsylvania • Pennsylvania judicial elections • Judicial selection in Pennsylvania