Because the courts of appeals possess only appellate jurisdiction, they do not hold
trials. Only courts with
original jurisdiction hold trials and thus determine punishments (in criminal cases) and remedies (in civil cases). Instead, appeals courts review decisions of trial courts for errors of law. Accordingly, an appeals court considers only the record (that is, the papers the parties filed and the transcripts and any exhibits from any trial) from the trial court, and the legal arguments of the parties. These arguments, which are presented in written form and can range in length from dozens to hundreds of pages, are known as
briefs. Sometimes lawyers are permitted to add to their written briefs with
oral arguments before the appeals judges. At such hearings, only the parties' lawyers speak to the court. The rules that govern the procedure in the courts of appeals are the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. In a court of appeals, an appeal is almost always heard by a "panel" of three judges who are randomly selected from the available judges (including senior judges and judges temporarily assigned to the circuit). Some cases, however, receive an
en banc hearing. Except in the Ninth Circuit Court, the
en banc court consists of all of the circuit judges who are on active status, but it does not include the senior or assigned judges (except that under some circumstances, a senior judge may participate in an
en banc hearing who participated at an earlier stage of the same case). Because of the large number of Appellate Judges in the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (29), only ten judges, chosen at random, and the Chief Judge hear
en banc cases. The strong emphasis on collective judicial participation distinguishes the en banc procedure in the United States courts of appeals from the use of extended judicial formations in other legal systems, where such bodies often serve different institutional purposes. In the past, certain classes of federal court cases held the right of an automatic appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States. That is, one of the parties in the case could appeal a decision of a court of appeals to the Supreme Court, and it had to accept the case. The right of automatic appeal for most types of decisions of a court of appeals was ended by the
Judiciary Act of 1925. Passage of this law was urged by
Chief Justice William Howard Taft. The current procedure is that a party in a case may apply to the Supreme Court to review a ruling of the circuit court. This is called petitioning for a
writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court may choose, in its sole discretion, to review any lower court ruling. In extremely rare cases, the Supreme Court may grant the writ of certiorari before the judgment is rendered by the court of appeals, thereby reviewing the lower court's ruling directly.
Certiorari before judgment was granted in the
Watergate scandal-related case,
United States v. Nixon, and in the 2005 decision involving the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines,
United States v. Booker. A court of appeals may also pose questions to the Supreme Court for a ruling in the midst of reviewing a case. This procedure was formerly used somewhat commonly, but now it is quite rare. For example, while between 1937 and 1946 twenty 'certificate' cases were accepted, since 1947 the Supreme Court has accepted only four. The Second Circuit, sitting
en banc, attempted to use this procedure in the case
United States v. Penaranda, 375 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2004), as a result of the Supreme Court's decision in
Blakely v. Washington, but the Supreme Court dismissed the question. The last instance of the Supreme Court accepting a set of questions and answering them was in 1982's ''City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc''. A court of appeals may convene a
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel to hear appeals in
bankruptcy cases directly from the
bankruptcy court of its circuit. , only the
First,
Sixth,
Eighth,
Ninth, and
Tenth Circuits have established a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Those circuits that do not have a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel have their bankruptcy appeals heard by the district court. Courts of appeals decisions, unlike those of the lower federal courts, establish binding
precedents. Other federal courts in that circuit must, from that point forward, follow the appeals court's guidance in similar cases, regardless of whether the trial judge thinks that the case should be decided differently. Federal and state laws can and do change from time to time, depending on the actions of Congress and the state legislatures. Therefore, the law that exists at the time of the appeal might be different from the law that existed at the time of the events that are in controversy under civil or criminal law in the case at hand. A court of appeals applies the law as it exists at the time of the appeal; otherwise, it would be handing down decisions that would be instantly obsolete, and this would be a waste of time and resources, since such decisions could not be cited as precedent. "[A] court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest injustice, or there is statutory direction or some legislative history to the contrary." However, the above rule cannot apply in criminal cases if the effect of applying the newer law would be to create an
ex post facto law to the detriment of the defendant. Decisions made by the circuit courts only apply to the districts within the court's oversight, though other courts may use the guidance issued by the circuit court in their own judgments. While a single case can only be heard by one circuit court, a core legal principle may be tried through multiple cases in separate circuit courts, creating an inconsistency between different parts of the United States. This creates a
split decision among the circuit courts. Often, if there is a split decision between two or more circuits, and a related case is petitioned to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court will take that case to resolve the split. ==Attorneys==