Pennsylvania Supreme Court
| Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
|---|
|
| Court Information |
| Justices: 7 |
| Founded: 1722 |
| Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania |
| Salary |
| Chief: $221, 037 Associates: $215,037 |
| Judicial Selection |
| Method: Partisan election |
| Term: 10 years |
| Active justices |
|
Christine Donohue |
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is the state's court of last resort and has seven judgeships. The current chief of the court is Max Baer. The court was established by the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly in 1722 as a successor to the Provincial Court established in 1684.[1] It is the oldest appellate court in the United States.[2]
As of August 2021, five judges on the court were elected in partisan elections as Democrats, one judge was elected as a Republican, and one judge was appointed by a Democratic governor.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court meets in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center, in Harrisburg Pennsylvania.
In Pennsylvania, state supreme court justices are elected in partisan elections. As of February 25, 2022, 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.[3][4]
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 justice; and (c) shall have such jurisdiction as shall be provided by law.[5] |
” |
| —Pennsylvania Constitution Article V, Section 2 | ||
Justices
The table below lists the current justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
| Judge | Appointed By |
|---|---|
|
Elected |
|
|
Elected |
|
|
Elected |
|
|
Elected |
|
|
Elected |
|
|
Elected |
Judicial selection
- See also: Judicial selection in Pennsylvania
The seven justices of the supreme court run in partisan primaries followed by general elections in which the primary winners from each party compete.[6]
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.[6][7] 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.[6][8]
Selection of the chief justice
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court chooses its chief justice by seniority; the title is held by the longest-serving justice on the court.[6][9]
Vacancies
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.[6]
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.[6]
The map below highlights how vacancies are filled in state supreme courts across the country.
Elections and appointments
In Pennsylvania, judges are elected by partisan election to 10-year terms. After their first term, judges must stand for retention every 10 years. Vacancies are filled by appointment. Appointed judges are allowed to run in the next general election more than 10 months after the vacancy; however, by Pennsylvania tradition, most interim judges do not stand for election.
2021
General election candidates
- Maria McLaughlin (Democratic Party)
- Kevin Brobson (Republican Party) ✔
Democratic primary candidates
Republican primary candidates
2017
Candidates
Justices facing retention
■ Thomas Saylor (R) 
■ Debra Todd (D)
Partisan election, Mundy's seat
■ Sallie Mundy (R) (Incumbent)
■ Dwayne D. Woodruff
2015
Three seats on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court were up for election in 2015—the most the court had ever seen in one election year.
- 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.[10]
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 - Election history, 2011-2013 (click to expand)
2013
- See also: Pennsylvania judicial elections, 2013
Judge Retention vote Retention Vote % Ronald Castille 
68.5% Max Baer 71.0% 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 J. Michael Eakin Yes District 2, Division D
Caseloads
The table below details the number of cases filed and adjudicated from the appeals, capital, and miscellaneous dockets.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court caseload data Year Filings[11] Adjudications[12] 2019[13] 634 626 2018[14] 695 682 2017[15] 676 678 2016[16] 735 609 2015[17] 609 693 2014[18] 716 766 2013[19] 694 720 2012[20] 750 901 2011[21] 740 655 2010[22] 706 684 2009[23] 699 702 2008[24] 729 742 Analysis
Ballotpedia Courts: Determiners and Dissenters (2021)
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[25]
- 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.[26]
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)
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.[27]
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 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.[28]
• 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."[29]
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.[30]
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:[31]
“ 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.[5] ” 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.[32][33][34][35][36]
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.[37]
• 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.[38] 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.[38]
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.[38]
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.[38]
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.[39]
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.[40]
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."[41] 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.[39][5] ” 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.[42][5] ” 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."[39]
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: Judges should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary
- Canon 2: Judges should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all their activities
- Canon 3: Judges should perform the duties of their office impartially and diligently
- Canon 4: Judges may engage in activities to improve the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice
- Canon 5: Judges should regulate their extra-judicial activities to minimize the risk of conflict with their judicial duties
- Canon 6: Compensation received for quasi-judicial and extra-judicial activities permitted by this code
- Canon 7: Judges should refrain from political activity inappropriate to their judicial office[5]
” —Pennsylvania Code of Judicial Conduct 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:[43]
- 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
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.[44] The Judiciary Act of 1722 established the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 67 years before the creation of the Supreme Court of the United States.[44]
Courts in Pennsylvania
- See also: Courts in Pennsylvania
In addition to the federal courts in Pennsylvania, there are three types of appellate courts, one general jurisdiction trial court, and three limited jurisdiction trial courts. Their infrastructure and relationship are illustrated in the flow chart below.
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, while the Republican Party controls both chambers of the state legislature.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "A Brief History of the Courts of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "Supreme Court of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "A Citizen's Guide," archived July 23, 2019
- ↑ Pennsylvania General Assembly, "Title 42," accessed September 24, 2019
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 American Judicature Society, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Pennsylvania," archived October 3, 2014
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "In Re: Nomination Papers of Marakay Rogers, Christina Valente and Carl J. Romanelli," November 7, 2006
- ↑ 2018 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, "Title 42, Chapter 33, Section 3351," accessed August 25, 2020
- ↑ The Pennsylvania Code, "Chapter 7. Assignment of Judges," accessed September 3, 2014
- ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "State Supreme Court races will sizzle in 2015," December 7, 2015
- ↑ Appeals (including capital appeals) and miscellaneous cases filed
- ↑ Total adjudications from appeals, capital, and miscellaneous dockets
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2019 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed August 30, 2021 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2018 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed August 30, 2021 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2017 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2016 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2015 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2014 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2013 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2012 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2011 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2010 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2009 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "2008 Caseload Statistics of the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania," accessed September 25, 2019 (pages 2 and 3)
- ↑ An Indeterminate score indicates that there is either not enough information about the justice’s partisan affiliations or that our research found conflicting partisan affiliations.
- ↑ The Court Balance Score is calculated by finding the average partisan Confidence Score of all justices on a state supreme court. For example, if a state has justices on the state supreme court with Confidence Scores of 4, -2, 2, 14, -2, 3, and 4, the Court Balance is the average of those scores: 3.3. Therefore, the Confidence Score on the court is Mild Republican. The use of positive and negative numbers in presenting both Confidence Scores and Court Balance Scores should not be understood to that either a Republican or Democratic score is positive or negative. The numerical values represent their distance from zero, not whether one score is better or worse than another.
- ↑ Stanford University, "State Supreme Court Ideology and 'New Style' Judicial Campaigns," October 31, 2012
- ↑ The New York Times, "Bill Cosby Freed as Court Overturns His Sex Assault Conviction," June 30, 2021
- ↑ Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief," archived June 23, 2021
- ↑ Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Order," November 25, 2020
- ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Order," archived April 15, 2021
- ↑ Fox News, "Pennsylvania Republicans to ask Supreme Court to review case after dismissal: candidate," November 29, 2020
- ↑ USA Today, "Lawsuit by Trump allies challenging Pennsylvania election results reaches Supreme Court," December 1, 2020
- ↑ Election Law Blog, "Rep. Kelly Has Apparently Withdrawn His Emergency Request for a SCOTUS Injunction to Reverse Pennsylvania Results, As He Awaits PA Supreme Court Ruling on Stay," December 2, 2020
- ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Emergency Application for Stay of Court's Order of November 28, 2020," archived February 25, 2021
- ↑ Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Order," December 3, 2020
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Kelly v. Pennsylvania: Docket," accessed December 7, 2020
- ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 Pennsylvania Supreme Court, Commonwealth v. Muniz, filed July 19, 2017
- ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Pennsylvania Supreme Court declares portions of shale-drilling law unconstitutional," December 20, 2013
- ↑ American Petroleum Institute, "What is fracking," accessed August 27, 2021
- ↑ Philly.com, "What Pa. court's ruling on gas-drilling law means," archived October 20, 2014
- ↑ rt.com, "Fracking opponents in Pennsylvania dealt rare victory by state court," December 20, 2013
- ↑ National Center for State Courts, "Methods of Judicial Selection: Pennsylvania, Removal of Judges," accessed May 11, 2015
- ↑ 44.0 44.1 The Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania, "History," accessed September 25, 2019
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
Supreme CourtsFederal State Alabama • Alaska • Arizona • Arkansas • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • D.C. • Florida • Georgia • Hawaii • Idaho • Illinois • Indiana • Iowa • Kansas • Kentucky • Louisiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Mississippi • Missouri • Montana • Nebraska • Nevada • New Hampshire • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • North Carolina • North Dakota • Ohio • Oklahoma • Oklahoma Criminal • Oregon • Pennsylvania • Rhode Island • South Carolina • South Dakota • Tennessee • Texas • Texas Criminal • Utah • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • West Virginia • Wisconsin • Wyoming - Election history, 2011-2013 (click to expand)
