See 28 U.S. Code §1251 et seq. (granting the Court original and exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters, discretionary review over the federal appellate courts or state courts issuing decisions that implicate the U.S. Constitution or federal laws). Decisions by three-judge courts, convened pursuant to particular statutes, are appealable to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. 28 U.S. Code §1253.
 E.g., United States v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013). The Supreme Court reviewed the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act following a federal appellate court ruling that it was unconstitutional.
 E.g., Vartelas v. Holder, 132 S.Ct. 1479 (2012). The Court considered whether a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act applied retroactively.
 E.g., Riley v. California, 2013 WL 475242 (Cal.App, 4th Dist. 2013), cert. granted, 134, U.S. 999 (2014) (No. 13-132), and United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 U.S. 999 (2014) (No. 13-212). The federal appellate and state courts are divided about whether a police officer may search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone, and the Supreme Court is considering the issue in its current term.
 E.g., Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 U.S. 2705 (2011). The Court evaluated the scope of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as it relates to forensic laboratory reports, which it had previously decided. See Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
 See Joseph D. Kearney and Thomas W. Merrill, “The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 148 (2000), p. 743.
 Michael E. Solimine, “The Solicitor General Unbound: Amicus Curiae Activism and Deference in the Supreme Court,” Arizona State Law Review, Vol. 45 (2013), p. 1183.
 See Lincoln Caplan, The Tenth Justice: The Solicitor General and the Rule of Law (New York: Knopf, 1987).
 David C. Thompson and Melanie F. Wachtell, “An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General,” George Mason Law Review, Vol. 16 (2009), p. 271.
 See Michael E. Solimine and Rafael Gely, “The Supreme Court and the Dig: An Empirical and Institutional Analysis,” Wisconsin Law Review, Vol. 2005 (2005), p. 1421.
 Lower courts are bound by dismissal of a mandatory appeal as opposed to a case that reached the Court through a petition for a writ of certiorari. Hicks v. Miranda, 422 U.S. 332, 344–345 (1975).
 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 296 (1989) (quoting United States v. Carver, 260 U.S. 482, 490 (1923) (Holmes, J.)).
 Maryland v. Baltimore Radio Show, Inc., 338 U.S. 912, 917 (1950).