On December 11, 2024, the Supreme Court published their judicial opinion concerning the NVIDIA Corporation, et al. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, et al. (2024) case, which was argued on November 13, 2024. The Court dismissed the writ of certiorari[1] as “improvidently granted,” which is a relatively rare procedural outcome. When the Court dismisses a certiorari grant in this manner, it typically means that after reviewing the case, the Justices determined that it was not appropriate or necessary to resolve the legal questions presented, or that there were other factors (such as changed circumstances or issues of standing) that made it unwise to proceed.
The per curiam opinion (an unsigned opinion that does not identify individual Justices as authors) does not provide any detailed explanation, which is often the case when the Court dismisses certiorari. However, such a decision leaves the lower court’s ruling intact, without offering any broader legal guidance or interpretation of the issues. In this case, the dismissal as “improvidently granted” means that the Ninth Circuit’s decision remains the law of the case, and the Supreme Court will not be addressing the substantive legal questions raised in the petition.
Reflection 1: The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the writ of certiorari as “improvidently granted” in NVIDIA Corporation v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB carries significant implications for the parties involved: (1) it affirms the lower court’s decision and (2) there is no precedential effect from the Supreme Court.
When the Supreme Court dismisses a writ as improvidently granted, it effectively leaves the ruling of the lower court (in this case, the Ninth Circuit) intact. For NVIDIA and the other petitioners, this means that whatever legal outcome was reached in the Ninth Circuit will stand. If the Ninth Circuit had ruled against NVIDIA, this result would remain in place.
Because the Supreme Court did not issue a substantive opinion, the case will not contribute to the development of federal law. This is particularly important in areas where a clear and authoritative decision from the highest court could clarify or resolve legal uncertainty. Instead, the Ninth Circuit’s decision will be the final word on the matter, unless another court or the Supreme Court later takes up a similar issue.
Reflection 2: What is the legal significance of a “dismissed as improvidently granted” ruling? Limited explanation and unresolved legal issues. Although the Court’s per curiam opinion provides no specific reasoning or details for the dismissal–leaving the legal community and litigants with little insight into why the Justices chose not to pursue the case–this kind of dismissal is usually a sign that the Court believes the case was not suitable for review after initial consideration. By declining to hear the case, the Supreme Court avoids addressing any underlying legal issues that might have had far-reaching consequences if it had ruled on them. The Court’s decision may suggest that the legal issues presented were either not ripe for review, did not present a significant enough question of federal law, or were inadequately framed for the Court to make a meaningful decision.
For legal practitioners and the parties involved, this leaves unresolved questions that may require further litigation or may remain uncertain in future cases, encouraging greater reliance on lower court decisions and increasing uncertainty. Since the Supreme Court declined to take the case, it signals that the lower court’s decisions may continue to stand as the final word on the issues presented in the case. Litigants in similar situations will have to rely on the Ninth Circuit’s decision and may look to it as guidance, even though the Supreme Court did not issue an authoritative ruling. For the legal community, a dismissal of certiorari may add a layer of uncertainty, especially in cases involving complex or high-profile issues. The fact that the Supreme Court did not provide an opinion means there is no official guidance on how to interpret certain legal questions. This leaves room for variability in the application of the law in other jurisdictions or in future cases, depending on the lower courts’ interpretations of the same issues.
Reflection 3: Why would the Supreme Court dismiss certiorari as improvidently granted? My guess is: (1) it would be an inappropriate case for review; (2) there are jurisdictional or procedural issues; or (3) there was a change of circumstances.
One reason the Court might dismiss a case as “improvidently granted” is that, upon closer review, the case is seen as an inappropriate vehicle for addressing the legal issues at stake. Perhaps the facts of the case were not sufficiently developed, or the legal questions were not as significant or pressing as initially thought.
The dismissal could also reflect concerns about jurisdiction, standing, or procedural issues that were not initially apparent. In some cases, the Court may grant certiorari based on a perception that the issues are important, only to later conclude that the case is not ripe for review or does not involve the kind of federal question that warrants Supreme Court intervention.
Sometimes, certiorari is dismissed after new developments or settlement negotiations make it clear that a judicial resolution is no longer necessary. If the parties have reached an agreement or if the legal issue has been rendered moot, the Court may decide not to proceed with the case.
Reflection 4: What are the broader implications for future cases? A dismissal as “improvidently granted” does not create binding precedent, meaning that this case will not guide future decisions, even though the legal issue raised by NVIDIA and its opponents might recur in other cases. The decision leaves the lower court’s ruling intact but doesn’t settle the larger legal questions for the broader public or legal system.
Parties seeking to bring cases before the Supreme Court may take note of the fact that the Court is selective in its decision-making and may be more cautious about granting certiorari. In future cases, petitioners may attempt to frame their issues more precisely or to ensure that the case presents an issue of national significance to maximize their chances of a grant.
Conclusion: The decision to dismiss certiorari as improvidently granted in this case indicates that the Supreme Court has chosen not to address the legal issues in question, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision to stand. While this outcome has immediate consequences for the litigants involved, it also sends a message to the legal community about the Court’s selectivity and its reluctance to take on cases that may not be appropriately framed or ripe for review. The legal uncertainty surrounding the case remains, and other courts or future petitions may be necessary to provide clarity on the unresolved issues.
[1] certiorari (sər-sh[ee]ə-rahr-ee or –rer-ee or –rer–I). [Latin ‘‘to be informed’’] An extraordinary writ issued by an appellate court, at its discretion, directing a lower court to deliver the record in the case for review. • Certiorari is used by the U.S. Supreme Court to review most of the cases it decides to hear.—Abbr. cert.—Also termed writ of certiorari. Black’s Law Dictionary, 12th Ed.
Banuelos 