You are a university student in a class on the judicial system. When your professor gives out a take- home exam you are very pleased. But, then, you discover that she will be basing your entire final exam grade (16% of your final grade) on only two questions and on only three choices. Naturally, you are outraged. The process seems entirely unfair and arbitrary and is a clear demonstration of uncheckedprofessorial power. Obviously, you'll want to litigate. You try to get some of your classmates to join withyou, but they tell youthey're too busy. Similarly, when you contact the ACLU (your civil liberties, after all, have been violated) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (your performance on this test has real implications for your future employment and thus your ability to be a good American consumer) you are told that they are too strapped even to write you an amicus brief. Moreover, you have learned that the University is fully backing the professor on this issue and, in addition to its own counsel, has retained Baltimore super-lawyer Peter Angelos. On the plus side, though, since "you have a phone, you have a lawyer," and your new attorney informs you that you should proceed with this case on federalconstitutional due process and equal protection grounds. Unfortunately for you a jury decides against you at trial and the 4thCircuit Court of Appeals upholds the trial court decision. Of course, you now proclaim your intention to take your case all the way to the Supreme Court. What are the chances of your case being heard by the Supreme Court?To answer this question, you can and should draw on our discussion of interest groups in courts, as well as more recent discussions and readings onSupreme Court procedure. You may also want to be thinking about "haves" and "have-nots."