Whether you’re studying law or just curious about how these cases unfold, I’ll help you understand the real steps, strategy, and legal framework that govern state and federal lawsuits.

Welcome back to Lawyer Talk! I’m Steve Palmer, and in this episode, Troy and I look into a great listener question:

According to the Constitution, if a state is a party in a case, does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction?

I walk through how Article III of the Constitution lays out the Supreme Court’s authority—especially when two states are involved in a dispute, like boundary issues or environmental matters.

But most cases where a state is suing the federal government, especially those we saw during COVID, actually start in lower federal courts. Troy jumps in with insights about venue selection and how lawyers can “forum shop” for a friendly judge.

We break down the process that gets a case from your local Ohio court all the way up to the US Supreme Court, highlighting the difference between preliminary injunctions and final decisions on the merits. I clarify why the Supreme Court isn’t there to fix mistakes, but to interpret and shape constitutional law.

Here are 3 key takeaways from our conversation:

• Original jurisdiction is limited: The Supreme Court only has original jurisdiction in very specific cases, such as disputes between two or more states, not just when any state is involved.
• Most cases climb a long ladder: State litigation usually starts in the lowest courts and works its way up. Even after reaching the state’s highest court (like the Ohio Supreme Court), cases might move to the U.S. Supreme Court under strict requirements, especially needing a substantial constitutional issue.
• Habeas corpus offers another path, but it’s rare: After state appeals are exhausted, federal habeas corpus proceedings can be used—starting in district court, up to the circuit court, and possibly, the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court rarely takes these cases.

Got a question you want answered on the podcast? Call 614-859-2119 and leave us a voicemail. Steve will answer your question on the next podcast!

Submit your questions to www.lawyertalkpodcast.com.

Recorded at Channel 511.

Stephen E. Palmer, Esq. has been practicing criminal defense almost exclusively since 1995. He has represented people in federal, state, and local courts in Ohio and elsewhere.

Though he focuses on all areas of criminal defense, he particularly enjoys complex cases in state and federal courts.

He has unique experience handling and assembling top defense teams of attorneys and experts in cases involving allegations of child abuse (false sexual allegations, false physical abuse allegations), complex scientific cases involving allegations of DUI and vehicular homicide cases with blood alcohol tests, and any other criminal cases that demand jury trial experience.

Steve has unique experience handling numerous high-publicity cases that have garnered national attention.

For more information about Steve and his law firm, visit Palmer Legal Defense.

Copyright 2026 Stephen E. Palmer - Attorney At Law

Mentioned in this episode:

Circle 270 Media Podcast Consultants

Circle 270 Media® is a podcast consulting firm based in Columbus, Ohio, specializing in helping businesses develop, launch, and optimize podcasts as part of their marketing strategy. The firm emphasizes the importance of storytelling through podcasting to differentiate businesses and engage with their audiences effectively. www.circle270media.com

All right, Lawyer Talk podcast, off the record, on the air, question and answer style. We have Eric asking this question. According to the Constitution, if a state is a party, then does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction? Yes.

No. Maybe.

It depends.

It all depends. I'm not sure exactly what he's getting at here as far as which us whether it's the U.S. supreme Court or the Ohio Supreme Court.

Well, act as if he's asking me if it is the United States Supreme Court. And the answer is no, generally, maybe if there are two states that are parties, then. So let's back up.

Article 3 of the Constitution is the grant of authority that establishes the U.S. supreme Court's jurisdiction. And the key aspects of that. The Supreme Court has exclusive authority over controversies between two or more states.

These often include boundary disputes, water rights, environmental issues, those kind of things. So if Ohio sues Indiana or something like that, in theory, the court would have exclusive jurisdiction over that.

There is some original but non exclusive jurisdiction involving like ambassadors, public ministers, consuls of foreign states, and cases between the United States and a state.

So the United States, if Ohio sues the government, and you see this happen sometimes during COVID you had states suing the government, those kind of things, in theory, the court could exercise original jurisdiction, but it's not exclusive, meaning the lower federal courts or the district courts would probably handle that first. And all this again is defined in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution. Generally speaking, that's not what the Supreme Court does, though.

No, what I was thinking was, and then we just talked about a second when you're reading this was if a state's suing, it has to go to a federal court because it can't be in a state court. But, but you kind of mentioned Covid, multiple states suing. Let's say Indiana and Ohio are both suing the federal government. Where would you start?

Because in my head, you can't start in the Southern District of Ohio or something in Indiana, whatever Indiana's federal courts are, because Indiana's not there.

I think you could start. This is.

Well, see, this is a hot topic right now because there's a big debate because really, what really those lawsuits involved involve some sort of declaratory relief or injunctive relief. In other words, Ohio is suing the federal government and asking for an injunction.

So Ohio is saying suing Trump and saying, or the federal government and says this executive order is invalid. And here's the constitutional reasons.

And while we are figuring out whether it is actually invalid based on these constitutional reasons, we are Asking for injunctive relief, a tro, temporary restraining order, telling the government they can't enforce this mandate, this executive order, this law, this rule, this whatever. While we are figuring this out, and this causes lots of confusion amongst probably law students, too, where these cases start in a district court.

And what's happening is I think the rules are pretty wide open about where you have to do this, what the venue is, and, you know, as good lawyers, you're gonna be thinking, what's the friendliest judge to my cause around the country? And you're gonna pick that one. So those who are going after Trump would say, look, that's gonna be in D.C. it's a very liberal jurisdiction.

Or there's this judge so and so who hates Trump and he's gonna do whatever I want. Or you go to New York. And I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm just saying that's what's happening.

And there's some question about what happens when can that judge in this local jurisdiction issue an order restraining the entire country in every jurisdiction? And I think I've talked to people on both sides of this debate, or both sides of the political aisle, rather.

I think there ought to be some better rule for that. I don't think that that kind of form shopping should be permitted.

I almost, at one point, I sort of was like, what would I do if I had the pen and I could rewrite the rules on this?

I'd probably create some sort of injunction court that both sides get to appoint judges, or, I don't know, you'd probably try to do something where you could have some uniformity.

Well, the case this year, I can't remember the name of it, we were just talking about in my class was it was a Trump versus V. Trump or something like that. It was where they.

A deportation case.

Yeah, yeah. But it was just over the. Everybody always just would be like, it's over the merits. It's like, no, it's not. It's not.

Injunctive relief is preliminary and not collateral, but preliminary. It's not a decision on the merits, but one of the prime factors.

So there's a bunch of factors that have to do with what's the threat in immediate danger of irreparable harm. That's one of the factors. And there's like five of them. I can't remember.

Another key factor, though, is what is the likelihood of success on the merits. In other words, we're not going to enjoin something.

We're not going to issue a Temporary preliminary order here, unless we think that at least the person asking for it has some chance of succeeding. So you can't just go file some frivolous nonsense and get a preliminary injunction if you can't win the case so often.

And I'm with you, people read too much into those actions, because a lot of these Supreme Court cases that are coming out are not decisions on the merits.

They are appeals that started in the federal district court because somebody picked a friendly jurisdiction, it went up to the circuit court that maybe is still friendly or that went the other way. And then they're asking the U.S. supreme Court to rule not on the merits of the case, but rather whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate.

You know, this happened during COVID with Amy Coney Barrett issued one of these types of injunctions, I think, on shutdowns at churches. I mean, it just. And then there's been some on immigration, there's been some on tariffs. I mean, this kind of stuff happens.

Yeah, it's important to note what they are, and it's important to note what they aren't, what value they have and what they don't. But anyway, back to it. Does the U.S. supreme Court have original jurisdiction? No, typically not.

I mean, there's very few cases where the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction that they are outlined in Article 3, and that's that. But, you know, there's. It's a good question, because it is the highest court of the land. And we want them to say. We should say one more thing.

At least talk about when a U.S. supreme Court will take a normal case. So State of Ohio versus Troy.

Yeah. And starts out in common pleas court at the county level in Franklin County.

Then if I want appeal, we'd go to our Ohio appellate district, which would be the 10th district here in Franklin County. And if I wanted to go further, I'd go to the highest quarter land of Ohio, which would be the Ohio Supreme Court.

And then if I still am not satisfied, I can go to the big house, the United States Supreme Court. And that'd be my ladder of how I got there.

And once you get to the high Supreme Court, you have a choice of two different ladders. So there's two ladders that will. There's a lot going on here, but we'll just go to the two ladders.

Once you get done in the Ohio Supreme Court, you have two ladders you can choose from, and. And you can actually climb both, one after the other.

The first is called a direct petition for certiorari in the U.S. supreme Court where you're asking the U.S. supreme Court to look at it, that requires a very significant constitutional issue that has broader applicability than just your case. These kind of supreme courts, state supreme courts, and certainly the US Supreme Court, they're not in the business of fixing mistakes.

They're in the business of interpreting and making law. They they don't get involved in error correction.

Now, the law that was applied in your case, if it's a constitutional, say it's a Sixth Amendment confrontation problem. And we know the U.S. supreme Court likes those kind of cases, right?

Now, they may get involved and they may interpret the law in such a way that fixes your conviction, but their goal is not to fix the conviction. The goal is to interpret and create good law consistent with their constitutional viewpoint or the U.S. constitution, rather.

So that's one direction directly to the U.S. supreme Court. The other is you go to something called habeas corpus. Back to our Latin means have the body, bring the body to me.

If you go back to the king's justice, he would say, bring the person to me. I'll fix this. And habeas corpus, it starts in the district courts, the lowest of federal courts.

And if you lose there, you can appeal to the circuit court of appeals in federal court. And if you lose there, you can go, then you're back asking the U.S. supreme Court to decide it. Either way, it's a rare bird.

They don't take a lot of cases. All right, so I hope that answers your question. If not, send us another comment, send us another question.

We'll do our best to address that to Lawyer Talk off the record on the air. Q and A style.