PARISI v. DAVIDSON et al.
No. 70-91.
Argued October 19-20, 1971
Decided February 23, 1972
Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Burger, C. J., and BrenNan, White, Marshall, and BlackmuN, JJ., joined. Douglas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, post, p. 46. Powell and Rehnquist, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Richard L. Goff argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were George A. Blackstone and Stephen V. Bomse.
William Terry Bray argued the cause for respondents. On the brief were Solicitor General Griswold, Assistant Attorney General Mardian, William Bradford Reynolds, Robert L. Keuch, and Robert A. Crandall.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
When a member of the armed forces has applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector and has exhausted all avenues of administrative relief, it is now settled that he may seek habeas corpus relief in a federal district court on the ground that the denial of his application had no basis in fact. The question in this case is whether the district court must stay its hand when court-martial proceedings are pending against the serviceman.
The petitioner, Joseph Parisi, was inducted into the Army as a draftee in August 1968. Nine months later he applied for a discharge as a conscientious objector, claiming that earlier doubts about military service had crystallized into a firm conviction that any form of military activity conflicted irreconcilably with his religious beliefs. He was interviewed by the base chaplain, the base psychiatrist, and a special hearing officer. They all attested to the petitioner’s sincerity and to the religious content of his professed beliefs. In addition, the commanding general of the petitioner’s Army training center and the commander of the Army hospital recommended that the petitioner be discharged as a conscientious objector. His immediate commanding officer, an Army captain, disagreed, recommending disapproval of the application on the ground that the petitioner’s beliefs were based on essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or on a merely personal moral code.
In November 1969, the Department of the Army denied the petitioner conscientious objector status, on the grounds that his professed beliefs had become fixed prior to entering the service and that his opposition to war was not truly based upon his religious beliefs. On November 24, 1969, the petitioner applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (hereafter sometimes ABCMR) for administrative review of that determination.
Four days later the petitioner commenced the present habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming that the Army’s denial of his conscientious objector application was without basis in fact. He sought discharge from the Army and requested a preliminary injunction to prevent his transfer out of the jurisdiction of the District Court and to prohibit further training preparatory to being transferred to Vietnam. The District Court declined at that time to consider the merits of the habeas corpus petition, but it retained jurisdiction pending a decision by the ABCMR, and in the meantime enjoined Army authorities from requiring the petitioner to participate in activity or training beyond his current noncombatant duties.
Shortly thereafter the petitioner received orders to report to Fort Lewis, Washington, for deployment to Vietnam, where he was to perform noncombatant duties similar to those that had been assigned to him in this country. He sought a stay of this redeployment order pending appeal of the denial of habeas corpus, but his application was denied by the Court of Appeals, on the condition that the Army would produce him if the appeal should result in his favor. A similar stay application was subsequently denied by Mr. Justice Douglas as Ninth Circuit Justice, Parisi v. Davidson, 396 U. S. 1233. The petitioner then reported to Fort Lewis. He refused, however, to obey a military order to board a plane for Vietnam. As a result, he was charged with violating Art. 90 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U. S. C. § 890, and, on April 8, 1970, a court-martial convicted him of that military offense.
While the court-martial charges were pending, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records notified the petitioner that it had rejected his application for relief from the Army’s denial of his conscientious objector application. The District Court then ordered the Army to show cause why the pending writ of habeas corpus should not issue. On the Government’s motion, the District Court, on March 31, 1970, entered an order deferring consideration of the habeas corpus petition until final determination of the criminal charge then pending in the military court system. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed this order, concluding that “habeas proceedings were properly stayed pending the final conclusion of Parisi’s military trial and his appeals therefrom,” 435 F. 2d 299, 302. We granted certiorari, 402 U. S. 942.
In affirming the stay of the petitioner’s federal habeas corpus proceeding until completion of the military courts’ action, the Court of Appeals relied on the related doctrines of exhaustion of alternative remedies and comity between the federal civilian courts and the military system of justice. We hold today that neither of these doctrines required a stay of the habeas corpus proceedings in this case.
With respect to available administrative remedies, there can be no doubt that the petitioner has fully met the demands of the doctrine of exhaustion — a doctrine that must be applied in each case with an “understanding of its purposes and of the particular administrative scheme involved.” McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, 193. The basic purpose of the exhaustion doctrine is to allow an administrative agency to perform functions within its special competence — to make a factual record, to apply its expertise, and to correct its own errors so as to moot judicial controversies. Id., at 194-195; McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479, 485; K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 20.01 etseq. (Supp. 1970).
In this case the petitioner fully complied with Army Regulation 635-20, which dictates the procedures to be followed by a serviceman seeking classification as a conscientious objector on the basis of beliefs that develop after induction. Moreover, following a rule of the Ninth Circuit then in effect, he went further and appealed to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The procedures and corrective opportunities of the military administrative apparatus had thus been wholly utilized at the time the District Court entered its order deferring consideration of the petitioner’s habeas corpus application.
It is clear, therefore, that, if the court-martial charge had not intervened, the District Court would have been wrong in not proceeding to an expeditious consideration of the merits of the petitioner’s claim. For the writ of habeas corpus has long been recognized as the appropriate remedy for servicemen who claim to be unlawfully retained in the armed forces. See, e. g., Eagles v. Samuels, 329 U. S. 304, 312; Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U. S. 233, 235; Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U. S. 487, 489. And, as stated at the outset, that writ is available to consider the plea of an in-service applicant for discharge as a conscientious objector who claims that exhaustion of military administrative procedures has led only to a factually baseless denial of his application. In re Kelly, 401 F. 2d 211 (CA5); Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F. 2d 705 (CA2).
But since a court-martial charge was pending against the petitioner when he sought habeas corpus in March 1970, the respondents submit that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the District Court must await the final outcome of those charges in the military judicial system before it may consider the merits of the petitioner’s habeas corpus claim. Although this argument, too, is framed in terms of “exhaustion,” it may more accurately be understood as based upon the appropriate demands of comity between two separate judicial systems. Requiring tile District Court to defer to the military courts in these circumstances serves the interests of comity, the respondents argue, by aiding the military judiciary in its task of maintaining order and discipline in the armed services and by eliminating “needless friction” between the federal civilian and military judicial systems. The respondents note that the military'constitutes a “specialized community governed by a separate discipline from that of the civilian,” Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 94; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128, and that in recognition of the special nature of the military community, Congress has created an autonomous military judicial system, pursuant to Art. I, § 8, of the Constitution. They further point out that civilian courts, out of respect for the separation-of-powers doctrine and for the needs of the military, have rightly been reluctant to interfere with military judicial proceedings.
But the issue in this case does not concern a federal district court’s direct intervention in a case arising in the military court system. Cf. Gusik v. Schilder, supra; Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683. The petitioner’s application for an administrative discharge — upon which the habeas corpus petition was based — antedated and was independent of the military criminal proceedings.
The question here, therefore, is whether a federal court should postpone adjudication of an independent civil lawsuit clearly within its original jurisdiction. Under accepted principles of comity, the court should stay its hand only if the relief the petitioner seeks — discharge as a conscientious objector — would also be available to him with reasonable promptness and certainty through the machinery of the military judicial system in its processing of the court-martial charge. Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U. S. 218, 229; Davis v. Mann, 377 U. S. 678, 690-691; Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado, 377 U. S. 713, 716-717. For the reasons that follow, we are not persuaded that such relief would be even potentially available, much less that it would be either prompt or certain.
Courts-martial are not convened to review and rectify administrative denials of conscientious objector claims or to release conscientious objectors from military service. They are convened to adjudicate charges of criminal violations of military law. It is true that the Court of Military Appeals has held that a soldier charged in a court-martial with refusal to obey a lawful order may, in certain limited circumstances, defend upon the ground that the order was not lawful because he had wrongfully been denied an administrative discharge as a conscientious objector. United States v. Noyd, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 483, 40 C. M. R. 195. The scope of the Noyd doctrine is narrow, United States v. Wilson, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 100, 41 C. M. R. 100, and its present vitality not wholly clear, United States v. Stewart, 20 U. S. C. M. A. 272, 43 C. M. R. 112. A Noyd defense, therefore, would be available, even arguably, only in an extremely limited category of court-martial proceedings. But even though we proceed on the assumption that Noyd offered this petitioner a potential affirmative defense to the court-martial charge brought against him, the fact remains that the Noyd doctrine offers, at best, no more than a defense to a criminal charge. Like any other legal or factual defense, it would, if successfully asserted at trial or on appeal, entitle the defendant to only an acquittal — not to the discharge from military service that he seeks in the habeas corpus proceeding.
The respondents acknowledge, as they must, the limited function of a Noyd defense in the trial and appeal of the court-martial proceeding itself. But they suggest that, if the military courts should eventually acquit the petitioner on the ground of his Noyd defense, then the petitioner may have “an available remedy by way of habeas corpus in the Court of Military Appeals.” In support of this suggestion, the respondents point to the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a), and to cases in which the Court of Military Appeals has exercised power under that Act to order servicemen released from military imprisonment pending appeals of their court-martial convictions. See Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S., at 695; Levy v. Resor, 17 U. S. C. M. A. 135, 37 C. M. R. 399; United States v. Jennings, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 88, 41 C. M. R. 88; Johnson v. United States, 19 U. S. C. M. A. 407, 42 C. M. R. 9.
But the All Writs Act only empowers courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions . . . ,” and the jurisdiction of the Court of Military Appeals is limited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to considering appeals from court-martial convictions. 10 U. S. C. § 867; United States v. Snyder, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 480, 40 C. M. R. 192. That court has been given no “jurisdiction” to consider a serviceman’s claim for discharge from the military as a conscientious objector.
Whether this conceptual difficulty might somehow be surmounted is a question for the Court of Military Appeals itself ultimately to decide. See United States v. Bevilacqua, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 10, 12, 39 C. M. R. 10, 12. But the short answer to the respondents’ suggestion in this case is the respondents’ own concession that that court has, to date, never so much as intimated that it has power to issue a writ of habeas corpus granting separation from military service to a conscientious objector. We conclude here, therefore, as in Noyd v. Bond, supra, at 698 n. 11, that the petitioner cannot “properly be required to exhaust a remedy which may not exist.” Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court with directions to give expeditious consideration to the merits of the petitioner’s habeas corpus application.
In holding as we do today that the pendency of court-martial proceedings must not delay a federal district court’s prompt determination of the conscientious objector claim of a serviceman who has exhausted all administrative remedies, we no more than recognize the historic respect in this Nation for valid conscientious objection to military service. See 50 U. S. C. App. § 456 (j); United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163. As the Defense Department itself has recognized, “the Congress . . . has deemed it more essential to respect a man’s religious beliefs than to force him to serve in the Armed Forces.” Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6 (May 10, 1968).
But our decision today should not be understood as impinging upon the basic principles of comity that must prevail between civilian courts and the military judicial system. See, e. g., Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683; Burns v. Wilson, 346 U. S. 137; Orloft v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83; Gusik v. Schilder, 340 U. S. 128. Accordingly, a federal district court, even though upholding the merits of the conscientious objector claim of a serviceman against whom court-martial charges are pending, should give careful consideration to the appropriate demands of comity in effectuating its habeas corpus decree.
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
At the time of oral argument of the present case, an appeal from this conviction was pending in a court of military review.
The right of a person in the armed forces to be classified as a conscientious objector after induction is bottomed on Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6 (May 10, 1968), issued by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to his authority under 10 U. S. C. § 133. The purpose of the directive is to provide “uniform procedures for the utilization of conscientious objectors in the Armed Forces and consideration of requests for discharge on the grounds of conscientious objection.” Army Regulation 635-20 was issued to effectuate the broader policies announced in DOD Directive No. 1300.6.
Under the rule of Craycroft v. Ferrall, 408 F. 2d 587 (CA9 1969), the petitioner was required to appeal the Department of the Army’s decision to the civilian Army Board for Correction of Military Records in order to exhaust military administrative remedies and have access to federal court. Current governmental policy rejects Craycroft. Compliance with Army Regulation 635-20, not perfection of an ABCMR appeal, marks the point when military administrative procedures have been exhausted. Department of Justice Memo. No. 652 (Oct. 23, 1969). In Craycroft v. Ferrall, 397 U. S. 335, this Court vacated the judgment of the Ninth Circuit that the petitioner there had to appeal to the Board for the Correction of Naval Records before proceeding in federal court. But our decision was announced on March 30, 1970, more than four months after the present petitioner had appealed to the ABCMR.
In 1946, Congress enacted legislation empowering the service secretaries, acting through boards of civilian officers of their respective departments, to alter military records when necessary to prevent injustice. Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, § 207, 60 Stat. 837, as amended by 70A Stat. 116, 10 U. S. C. § 1552 (1952 ed., Supp. IV). Pursuant to this legislation, each service established a board for the correction of military records whose function is, on application by a serviceman, to review the military record and intervene where necessary to correct error or remove injustice. 10 U. S. C. § 1552 (a).
The Department of Justice, in consultation with the Department of Defense, has accepted the holdings of the Kelly and Hammond cases. Department of Justice Memo. No. 652 (Oct. 23, 1969). See United States ex rel. Brooks v. Clifford, 409 F. 2d 700, 701 (CA4). Compare Noyd v. McNamara, 378 F. 2d 538 (CA10), with Polsky v. Wetherill, 403 U. S. 916, vacating judgment in 438 F. 2d 132 (CA10).
The respondents do not contend that the military courts have a special competence in determining if a conscientious objector application has been denied without basis in fact. As they acknowledge in their brief:
“Plainly, judicial review of the factual basis for the Army’s denial of petitioner’s conscientious objector claim does not require an interpretation of ‘extremely technical provisions of the Uniform Code [of Military Justice] which have no analogs in civilian jurisprudence,’ ” quoting Noyd v. Bond, 395 U. S. 683, 696.
Thus,, it is not contended that exhaustion of military court remedies — like exhaustion of military administrative remedies- — -is required by the principles announced in McKart v. United States, 395 U. S. 185, and McGee v. United States, 402 U. S. 479.
The concept of “exhaustion” in the context of the demands of comity between different judicial systems is closely analogous to the doctrine of abstention. For a discussion of the exhaustion and abstention doctrines in the federal-state context, see generally C. Wright, Handbook of the Law of Federal Courts 186-188, 196— 208 (2d ed. 1970).
Barker, Military Law — A Separate System of Jurisprudence, 36 U. Cin. L. Rev. 223 (1967); Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 181 (1962). Military courts are legislative courts; their jurisdiction is independent of Art. Ill judicial power. Following World War II, Congress, in an attempt to reform and modernize the system of military law, created the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Act of May 5, 1950, c. 169, 64 Stat. 107. In 1968, the Code was amended by the Military Justice Act, 10 U. S. C. § 819, to improve court-martial and review procedures.
See Hammond v. Lenfest, 398 F. 2d 705, 710 (CA2 1968):
“Judicial hesitancy when faced with matters touching on military affairs is hardly surprising in view of the doctrine of separation of powers and the responsibility for national defense which the Constitution . . . places upon the Congress and the President. Moreover, the ever-present and urgent need for discipline in the armed services would alone explain the relative freedom of the military from judicial supervision.”
Army Regulation 635-20 provides that
“individuals who have submitted formal applications [for conscientious objector' status] . . . will be retained in their units and assigned duties providing the minimum practicable conflict with their asserted beliefs pending a final decision on their applications.” Noyd involved an Air Force officer who, after being denied conscientious objector status, refused to obey an order to instruct student pilots to fly a fighter plane used in Vietnam. Noyd’s commanding officer had refrained from ordering the accused to give such instruction until the application had been processed and denied. As the Court of Military Appeals said:
“The validity of the order [to instruct students], therefore, depended upon the validity of the Secretary’s decision [rejecting the conscientious objector application] ... If the Secretary’s decision was illegal, the order it generated was also illegal.” United States v. Noyd, 18 U. S. C. M. A. 483, 492, 40 C. M. R. 195, 204.
The petitioner did, in fact, interpose a Noyd defense at his court-martial trial, and it was rejected upon the military judge’s finding that “the ruling of the Secretary of the Army was not arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or an abusive [sic] discretion.”
We have been referred to no reported military court decision (including Noyd itself) that has yet acquitted a defendant upon the basis of a Noyd defense.
If the military courts should ultimately acquit the petitioner on grounds other than wrongful denial of his conscientious objector application, the respondents acknowledge that he could not seek habeas corpus in the military judicial system. In this event, therefore, the petitioner could clearly not obtain the relief that he seeks in the military court system.
This result is not inconsistent with the need to maintain order and discipline in the military and to avoid needless friction between the federal civilian and military judicial systems. If the Noyd defense is available and if the order that the petitioner disobeyed was unlawful if his conscientious objector claim is valid, then allowing him to proceed in federal district court as soon as military administrative remedies have been exhausted does not affect military-discipline. For if the conscientious objector claim is valid, the Army can have no interest in punishing him for disobedience of an unlawful order. If the conscientious objector claim is invalid, then the Army can, of course, prosecute the petitioner for his alleged disobedience of a lawful order.
Correlatively, if the charges in military court would be unaffected by the validity of the conscientious objector claim, both the petitioner’s habeas corpus action and the criminal trial in military court could proceed concurrently. See n. 15, infra. Needless to say, the question whether wrongful denial of conscientious objector status may be raised as a defense against various types of military charges must remain with the military courts, as they exercise their special function of administering military law.
See generally Report of the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service, In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve? 48-51 (1967); Selective Service System Monograph No. 11, Conscientious Objection (1950); Russell, Development of Conscientious Objector Recognition in the United States, 20 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 409 (1952); Comment, God, the Army, and Judicial Review: The In-Service Conscientious Objector, 56 Calif. L. Rev. 379 (1968).
In the present case the respondents acknowledge that if the administrative denial of the petitioner’s conscientious objector claim had no basis in fact, then the court-martial charge against him is invalid. It follows that, if he should prevail in the habeas corpus proceeding, he is entitled to his immediate release from the military. At the other end of the spectrum is the hypothetical case of a court-martial charge that has no real connection with the conscientious objector claim — e. g., a charge of stealing a fellow soldier’s watch. In such a case, a district court, even though upholding the serviceman’s conscientious objector claim, might condition its order of discharge upon the completion of the court-martial proceedings and service of any lawful sentence imposed.
U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals U.S. Court of International Trade U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces U.S. Court of Military Review U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals U.S. Customs Court U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit U.S. Tax Court Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals U.S. Court for China U.S. Consular Courts U.S. Commerce Court Territorial Supreme Court Territorial Appellate Court Territorial Trial Court Emergency Court of Appeals Supreme Court of the District of Columbia Bankruptcy Court U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction) Alabama Middle U.S. District Court Alabama Northern U.S. District Court Alabama Southern U.S. District Court Alaska U.S. District Court Arizona U.S. District Court Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court Arkansas Western U.S. District Court California Central U.S. District Court California Eastern U.S. District Court California Northern U.S. District Court California Southern U.S. District Court Colorado U.S. District Court Connecticut U.S. District Court Delaware U.S. District Court District Of Columbia U.S. District Court Florida Middle U.S. District Court Florida Northern U.S. District Court Florida Southern U.S. District Court Georgia Middle U.S. District Court Georgia Northern U.S. District Court Georgia Southern U.S. District Court Guam U.S. District Court Hawaii U.S. District Court Idaho U.S. District Court Illinois Central U.S. District Court Illinois Northern U.S. District Court Illinois Southern U.S. District Court Indiana Northern U.S. District Court Indiana Southern U.S. District Court Iowa Northern U.S. District Court Iowa Southern U.S. District Court Kansas U.S. District Court Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court Kentucky Western U.S. District Court Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court Louisiana Western U.S. District Court Maine U.S. District Court Maryland U.S. District Court Massachusetts U.S. District Court Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court Michigan Western U.S. District Court Minnesota U.S. District Court Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court Missouri Western U.S. District Court Montana U.S. District Court Nebraska U.S. District Court Nevada U.S. District Court New Hampshire U.S. District Court New Jersey U.S. District Court New Mexico U.S. District Court New York Eastern U.S. District Court New York Northern U.S. District Court New York Southern U.S. District Court New York Western U.S. District Court North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court North Carolina Western U.S. District Court North Dakota U.S. District Court Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court Ohio Northern U.S. District Court Ohio Southern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court Oregon U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court Puerto Rico U.S. District Court Rhode Island U.S. District Court South Carolina U.S. District Court South Dakota U.S. District Court Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court Tennessee Western U.S. District Court Texas Eastern U.S. District Court Texas Northern U.S. District Court Texas Southern U.S. District Court Texas Western U.S. District Court Utah U.S. District Court Vermont U.S. District Court Virgin Islands U.S. District Court Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court Virginia Western U.S. District Court Washington Eastern U.S. District Court Washington Western U.S. District Court West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court Wyoming U.S. District Court Louisiana U.S. District Court Washington U.S. District Court West Virginia U.S. District Court Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court South Carolina Western U.S. District Court Alabama U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone Georgia U.S. District Court Illinois U.S. District Court Indiana U.S. District Court Iowa U.S. District Court Michigan U.S. District Court Mississippi U.S. District Court Missouri U.S. District Court New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court) New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court) New York U.S. District Court North Carolina U.S. District Court Ohio U.S. District Court Pennsylvania U.S. District Court Tennessee U.S. District Court Texas U.S. District Court Virginia U.S. District Court Norfolk U.S. District Court Wisconsin U.S. District Court Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court New Jersey U.S. District Court California U.S. District Court Florida U.S. District Court Arkansas U.S. District Court District of Orleans U.S. District Court State Supreme Court State Appellate Court State Trial Court Eastern Circuit (of the United States) Middle Circuit (of the United States) Southern Circuit (of the United States) Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming Circuit Court of the District of Columbia Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma Court of Private Land Claims United States Supreme Court