What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to identify the court in which the case originated. Focus on the court in which the case originated, not the administrative agency. For this reason, if appropiate note the origin court to be a state or federal appellate court rather than a court of first instance (trial court). If the case originated in the United States Supreme Court (arose under its original jurisdiction or no other court was involved), note the origin as "United States Supreme Court". If the case originated in a state court, note the origin as "State Court". Do not code the name of the state. The courts in the District of Columbia present a special case in part because of their complex history. Treat local trial (including today's superior court) and appellate courts (including today's DC Court of Appeals) as state courts. Consider cases that arise on a petition of habeas corpus and those removed to the federal courts from a state court as originating in the federal, rather than a state, court system. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus begins in the federal district court, not the state trial court. Identify courts based on the naming conventions of the day. Do not differentiate among districts in a state. For example, use "New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York" for all the districts in New York.

ALEXANDER, GOVERNOR OF TENNESSEE, et al. v. CHOATE et al.
No. 83-727.
Argued October 1, 1984
Decided January 9, 1985
Marshall, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
W. J. Michael Cody, Attorney General of Tennessee, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were William M. Leech, Jr., former Attorney General, William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Attorney General, and Frank J. Scanlon, Deputy Attorney General.
Deputy Solicitor General Bator argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Lee, Assistant Attorney General Reynolds, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Cooper, John H. Garvey, and Brian K. Landsberg.
Gordon Bonnyman argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Brian Paddock, Arlene Mayerson, J. LeVonne Chambers, and Eric Schnapper.
Robert E. Williams and Douglas S. McDowell filed a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council as amicus curiae urging reversal.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Center for Independent Living — San Gabriel/Pomona Valleys et al. by Marilyn Hollé and Timothy Cook; and for United Cerebral Palsy of New York City, Inc., by Michael A. Rebell.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1980, Tennessee proposed reducing the number of annual days of inpatient hospital care covered by its state Medicaid program. The question presented is whether the effect upon the handicapped that this reduction will have is cognizable under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or its implementing regulations. We hold that it is not.
I
Faced in 1980-1981 with projected state Medicaid costs of $42 million more than the State’s Medicaid budget of $388 million, the directors of the Tennessee Medicaid program decided to institute a variety of cost-saving measures. Among these changes was a reduction from 20 to 14 in the number of inpatient hospital days per fiscal year that Tennessee Medicaid would pay hospitals on behalf of a Medicaid recipient. Before the new measures took effect, respondents, Tennessee Medicaid recipients, brought a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief in which they alleged, inter alia, that the proposed 14-day limitation on inpatient coverage would have a discriminatory effect on the handicapped. Statistical evidence, which petitioners do not dispute, indicated that in the 1979-1980 fiscal year, 27.4% of all handicapped users of hospital services who received Medicaid required more than 14 days of care, while only 7.8% of nonhandicapped users required more than 14 days of inpatient care.
Based on this evidence, respondents asserted that the reduction would violate §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §794, and its implementing regulations. Section 504 provides:
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual. . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §794.
Respondents’ position was twofold. First, they argued that the change from 20 to 14 days of coverage would have a disproportionate effect on the handicapped and hence was discriminatory. The second, and major, thrust of respondents’ attack was directed at the use of any annual limitation on the number of inpatient days covered, for respondents acknowledged that, given the special needs of the handicapped for medical care, any such limitation was likely to disadvantage the handicapped disproportionately. Respondents noted, however, that federal law does not require States to impose any annual durational limitation on inpatient coverage, and that the Medicaid programs of only 10 States impose such restrictions. Respondents therefore suggested that Tennessee follow these other States and do away with any limitation on the number of annual inpatient days covered. Instead, argued respondents, the State could limit the number of days of hospital coverage on a per-stay basis, with the number of covered days to vary depending on the recipient’s illness (for example, fixing the number of days covered for an appendectomy); the period to be covered for each illness could then be set at a level that would keep Tennessee’s Medicaid program as a whole within its budget. The State’s refusal to adopt this plan was said to result in the imposition of gratuitous costs on the handicapped and thus to constitute discrimination under §504.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that respondents had indeed established a prima facie case of a § 504 violation. Jennings v. Alexander, 715 F. 2d 1036 (1983). The majority apparently concluded that any action by a federal grantee that disparately affects the handicapped states a cause of action under §504 and its implementing regulations. Because both the 14-day rule and any annual limitation on inpatient coverage disparately affected the handicapped, the panel found that a prima facie case had been made out, and the case was remanded to give Tennessee an opportunity for rebuttal. According to the panel majority, the State on remand could either demonstrate the unavailability of alternative plans that would achieve the State’s legitimate cost-saving goals with a less disproportionate impact on the handicapped, or the State could offer “a substantial justification for the adoption of the plan with the greater discriminatory impact.” Id., at 1045. We granted certiorari to consider whether the type of impact at issue in this case is cognizable under §504 or its implementing regulations, 465 U. S. 1021 (1984), and we now reverse.
II
The first question the parties urge on the Court is whether proof of discriminatory animus is always required to establish a violation of §504 and its implementing regulations, or whether federal law also reaches action by a recipient of federal funding that discriminates against the handicapped by effect rather than by design. The State of Tennessee argues that §504 reaches only purposeful discrimination against the handicapped. As support for this position, the State relies heavily on our recent decision in Guardians Assn. v. Civil Service Comm’n of New York City, 463 U. S. 582 (1983).
In Guardians, we confronted the question whether Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq., which prohibits discrimination against racial and ethnic minorities in programs receiving federal aid, reaches both intentional and disparate-impact discrimination. No opinion commanded a majority in Guardians, and Members of the Court offered widely varying interpretations of Title VI. Nonetheless, a two-pronged holding on the nature of the discrimination proscribed by Title VI emerged in that case. First, the Court held that Title VI itself directly reached only instances of intentional discrimination. Second, the Court held that actions having an unjustifiable disparate impact on minorities could be redressed through agency regulations designed to implement the purposes of Title VI. In essence, then, we held that Title VI had delegated to the agencies in the first instance the complex determination of what sorts of disparate impacts upon minorities constituted sufficiently significant social problems, and were readily enough remediable, to warrant altering the practices of the federal grantees that had produced those impacts.
Guardians, therefore, does not support petitioners’ blanket proposition that federal law proscribes only intentional discrimination against the handicapped. Indeed, to the extent our holding in Guardians is relevant to the interpretation of § 504, Guardians suggests that the regulations implementing §504, upon which respondents in part rely, could make actionable the disparate impact challenged in this case. Moreover, there are reasons to pause before too quickly extending even the first prong of Guardians to § 504. Cf. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U. S. 624, 632-633, n. 13 (1984) (recognizing distinctions between Title Viand §504).
Discrimination against the handicapped was perceived by Congress to be most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of thoughtlessness and indifference — of benign neglect. Thus, Representative Vanik, introducing the predecessor to § 504 in the House, described the treatment of the handicapped as one of the country’s “shameful oversights,” which caused the handicapped to live among society “shunted aside, hidden, and ignored.” 117 Cong. Rec. 45974 (1971). Similarly, Senator Humphrey, who introduced a companion measure in the Senate, asserted that “we can no longer tolerate the invisibility of the handicapped in America . . . .” 118 Cong. Rec. 525-526 (1972). And Senator Cranston, the Acting Chairman of the Subcommittee that drafted § 504, described the Act as a response to “previous societal neglect.” 119 Cong. Rec. 5880, 5883 (1973). See also 118 Cong. Rec. 526 (1972) (statement of cosponsor Sen. Percy) (describing the legislation leading to the 1973 Act as a national commitment to eliminate the “glaring neglect” of the handicapped). Federal agencies and commentators on the plight of the handicapped similarly have found that discrimination against the handicapped is primarily the result of apathetic attitudes rather than affirmative animus.
In addition, much of the conduct that Congress sought to alter in passing the Rehabilitation Act would be difficult if not impossible to reach were the Act construed to proscribe only conduct fueled by a discriminatory intent. For example, elimination of architectural barriers was one of the central aims of the Act, see, e. g., S. Rep. No. 93-318, p. 4 (1973), yet such barriers were clearly not erected with the aim or intent of excluding the handicapped. Similarly, Senator Williams, the chairman of the Labor and Public Welfare Committee that reported out § 504, asserted that the handicapped were the victims of “[discrimination in access to public transportation” and “[discrimination because they do not have the simplest forms of special educational and rehabilitation services they need . . . 118 Cong. Rec. 3320 (1972). And Senator Humphrey, again in introducing the proposal that later became §504, listed, among the instances of discrimination that the section would prohibit, the use of “transportation and architectual barriers,” the “discriminatory effect of job qualification . . . procedures,” and the denial of “special educational assistance” for handicapped children. Id., at 525-526. These statements would ring hollow if the resulting legislation could not rectify the harms resulting from action that discriminated by effect as well as by design.
At the same time, the position urged by respondents — that we interpret § 504 to reach all action disparately affecting the handicapped — is also troubling. Because the handicapped typically are not similarly situated to the nonhandicapped, respondents’ position would in essence require each recipient of federal funds first to evaluate the effect on the handicapped of every proposed action that might touch the interests of the handicapped, and then to consider alternatives for achieving the same objectives with less severe disadvantage to the handicapped. The formalization and policing of this process could lead to a wholly unwieldy administrative and adjudicative burden. See Note, Employment Discrimination Against the Handicapped and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: An Essay on Legal Evasiveness, 97 Harv. L. Rev. 997, 1008 (1984) (describing problems with pure disparate-impact model in context of employment discrimination against the handicapped). Had Congress intended §504 to be a National Environmental Policy Act for the handicapped, requiring the preparation of “Handicapped Impact Statements” before any action was taken by a grantee that affected the handicapped, we would expect some indication of that purpose in the statute or its legislative history. Yet there is nothing to suggest that such was Congress’ purpose. Thus, just as there is reason to question whether Congress intended § 504 to reach only intentional discrimination, there is similarly reason to question whether Congress intended § 504 to embrace all claims of disparate-impact discrimination.
Any interpretation of § 504 must therefore be responsive to two powerful but countervailing considerations — the need to give effect to the statutory objectives and the desire to keep § 504 within manageable bounds. Given the legitimacy of both of these goals and the tension between them, we decline the parties’ invitation to decide today that one of these goals so overshadows the other as to eclipse it. While we reject the boundless notion that all disparate-impact showings constitute prima facie cases under § 504, we assume without deciding that § 504 reaches at least some conduct that has an unjustifiable disparate impact upon the handicapped. On that assumption, we must then determine whether the disparate effect of which respondents complain is the sort of disparate impact that federal law might recognize.
Ill
To determine which disparate impacts §504 might make actionable, the proper starting point is Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397 (1979), our major previous attempt to define the scope of § 504. Davis involved a plaintiff with a major hearing disability who sought admission to a college to be trained as a registered nurse, but who would not be capable of safely performing as a registered nurse even with full-time personal supervision. We stated that, under some circumstances, a “refusal to modify an existing program might become unreasonable and discriminatory. Identification of those instances where a refusal to accommodate the needs of a disabled person amounts to discrimination against the handicapped [is] an important responsibility of HEW.” Id.,, at 413. We held that the college was not required to admit Davis because it appeared unlikely that she could benefit from any modifications that the relevant HEW regulations required, id., at 409, and because the further modifications Davis sought — full-time, personal supervision whenever she attended patients and elimination of all clinical courses — would have compromised the essential nature of the college’s nursing program, id., at 413-414. Such a “fundamental alteration in the nature of a program” was far more than the reasonable modifications the statute or regulations required. Id., at 410. Davis thus struck a balance between the statutory rights of the handicapped to be integrated into society and the legitimate interests of federal grantees in preserving the integrity of their programs: while a grantee need not be required to make “fundamental” or “substantial” modifications to accommodate the handicapped, it may be required to make “reasonable” ones. Compare ibid, with id., at 412-413.
The balance struck in Davis requires that an otherwise qualified handicapped individual must be provided with meaningful access to the benefit that the grantee offers. The benefit itself, of course, cannot be defined in' a way that effectively denies otherwise qualified handicapped individuals the meaningful access to which they are entitled; to assure meaningful access, reasonable accommodations in the grantee’s program or benefit may have to be made. In this case, respondents argue that the 14-day rule, or any annual durational limitation, denies meaningful access to Medicaid services in Tennessee. We examine each of these arguments in turn.
A
The 14-day limitation will not deny respondents meaningful access to Tennessee Medicaid services or exclude them from those services. The new limitation does not invoke criteria that have a particular exclusionary effect on the handicapped; the reduction, neutral on its face, does not distinguish between those whose coverage will be reduced and those whose coverage will not on the basis of any test, judgment, or trait that the handicapped as a class are less capable of meeting or less likely of having. Moreover, it cannot be argued that “meaningful access” to state Medicaid services will be denied by the 14-day limitation on inpatient coverage; nothing in the record suggests that the handicapped in Tennessee will be unable to benefit meaningfully from the coverage they will receive under the 14-day rule. The reduction in inpatient coverage will leave both handicapped and nonhandicapped Medicaid users with identical and effective hospital services fully available for their use, with both classes of users subject to the same durational limitation. The 14-day limitation, therefore, does not exclude the handicapped from or deny them the benefits of the 14 days of care the State has chosen to provide. Cf. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972).
To the extent respondents further suggest that their greater need for prolonged inpatient care means that, to provide meaningful access to Medicaid services, Tennessee must single out the handicapped for more than 14 days of coverage, the suggestion is simply unsound. At base, such a suggestion must rest on the notion that the benefit provided through state Medicaid programs is the amorphous objective of “adequate health care.” But Medicaid programs do not guarantee that each recipient will receive that level of health care precisely tailored to his or her particular needs. Instead, the benefit provided through Medicaid is a particular package of health care services, such as 14 days of inpatient coverage. That package of services has the general aim of assuring that individuals will receive necessary medical care, but the benefit provided remains the individual services offered — not “adequate health care.”
The federal Medicaid Act makes this point clear. The Act gives the States substantial discretion to choose the proper mix of amount, scope, and duration limitations on coverage, as long as care and services are provided in “the best interests of the recipients.” 42 U. S. C. § 1396a(a)(19). The District Court found that the 14-day limitation would fully serve 95% of even handicapped individuals eligible for Tennessee Medicaid, and both lower courts concluded that Tennessee’s proposed Medicaid plan would meet the “best interests” standard. That unchallenged conclusion indicates that Tennessee is free, as a matter of the Medicaid Act, to choose to define the benefit it will be providing as 14 days of inpatient coverage.
Section 504 does not require the State to alter this definition of the benefit being offered-simply to meet the reality that the handicapped have greater medical needs. To conclude otherwise would be to find that the Rehabilitation Act requires States to view certain illnesses, i. e., those particularly affecting the handicapped, as more important than others and more worthy of cure through government subsidization. Nothing in the legislative history of the Act supports such a conclusion. Cf. Doe v. Colautti, 592 F. 2d 704 (CA3 1979) (State may limit covered-private-inpatient-pyschiatric care to 60 days even though State sets no limit on duration of coverage for physical illnesses). Section 504 seeks to assure evenhanded treatment and the opportunity for handicapped individuals to participate in and benefit from programs receiving federal assistance. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U. S. 397 (1979). The Act does not, however, guarantee the handicapped equal results from the provision of state Medicaid, even assuming some measure of equality of health could be constructed. Ibid.
Regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) pursuant to the Act further support this conclusion. These regulations state that recipients of federal funds who provide health services cannot “provide a qualified handicapped person with benefits or services that are not as effective (as defined in § 84.4(b)) as the benefits or services provided to others.” 45 CFR §84.52(a)(3)(1984). The regulations also prohibit a recipient of federal funding from adopting “criteria or methods of administration that have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the recipient’s program with respect to the handicapped.” 45 CFR § 84.4 (b) (4) (ii) (1984).
While these regulations, read in isolation, could be taken to suggest that a state Medicaid program must make the handicapped as healthy as the nonhandicapped, other regulations reveal that HHS does not contemplate imposing such a requirement. Title 45 CFR § 84.4(b)(2)(1984), referred to in the regulations quoted above, makes clear that
“[f]or purposes of this part, aids, benefits, and services, to be equally effective, are not required to produce the identical result or level of achievement for handicapped and nonhandicapped persons, but must afford handicapped persons equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement. . . .”
This regulation, while indicating that adjustments to existing programs are contemplated, also makes clear that Tennessee is not required to assure that its handicapped Medicaid users will be as healthy as its nonhandicapped users. Thus, to the extent respondents are seeking a distinct durational limitation for the handicapped, Tennessee is entitled to respond by asserting that the relevant benefit is 14 days of coverage. Because the handicapped have meaningful and equal access to that benefit, Tennessee is not obligated to reinstate its 20-day rule or to provide the handicapped with more than 14 days of inpatient coverage.
B
We turn next to respondents’ alternative contention, a contention directed not at the 14-day rule itself but rather at Tennessee’s Medicaid plan as a whole. Respondents argue that the inclusion of any annual durational limitation on inpatient coverage in a state Medicaid plan violates §504. The thrust of this challenge is that all annual durational limitations discriminate against the handicapped because (1) the effect of such limitations falls most heavily on the handicapped and because (2) this harm could be avoided by the choice of other Medicaid plans that would meet the State’s budgetary constraints without disproportionately disadvantaging the handicapped. Viewed in this light, Tennessee’s current plan is said to inflict a gratuitous harm on the handicapped that denies them meaningful access to Medicaid services.
Whatever the merits of this conception of meaningful access, it is clear that §504 does not require the changes respondents seek. In enacting the Rehabilitation Act and in subsequent amendments, Congress did focus on several substantive areas

Question: What is the court in which the case originated?
001. U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
002. U.S. Court of International Trade
003. U.S. Court of Claims, Court of Federal Claims
004. U.S. Court of Military Appeals, renamed as Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
005. U.S. Court of Military Review
006. U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals
007. U.S. Customs Court
008. U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
009. U.S. Tax Court
010. Temporary Emergency U.S. Court of Appeals
011. U.S. Court for China
012. U.S. Consular Courts
013. U.S. Commerce Court
014. Territorial Supreme Court
015. Territorial Appellate Court
016. Territorial Trial Court
017. Emergency Court of Appeals
018. Supreme Court of the District of Columbia
019. Bankruptcy Court
020. U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
021. U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
022. U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
023. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
024. U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
025. U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
026. U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
027. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
028. U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
029. U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit
030. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
031. U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (includes the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia but not the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which has local jurisdiction)
032. Alabama Middle U.S. District Court
033. Alabama Northern U.S. District Court
034. Alabama Southern U.S. District Court
035. Alaska U.S. District Court
036. Arizona U.S. District Court
037. Arkansas Eastern U.S. District Court
038. Arkansas Western U.S. District Court
039. California Central U.S. District Court
040. California Eastern U.S. District Court
041. California Northern U.S. District Court
042. California Southern U.S. District Court
043. Colorado U.S. District Court
044. Connecticut U.S. District Court
045. Delaware U.S. District Court
046. District Of Columbia U.S. District Court
047. Florida Middle U.S. District Court
048. Florida Northern U.S. District Court
049. Florida Southern U.S. District Court
050. Georgia Middle U.S. District Court
051. Georgia Northern U.S. District Court
052. Georgia Southern U.S. District Court
053. Guam U.S. District Court
054. Hawaii U.S. District Court
055. Idaho U.S. District Court
056. Illinois Central U.S. District Court
057. Illinois Northern U.S. District Court
058. Illinois Southern U.S. District Court
059. Indiana Northern U.S. District Court
060. Indiana Southern U.S. District Court
061. Iowa Northern U.S. District Court
062. Iowa Southern U.S. District Court
063. Kansas U.S. District Court
064. Kentucky Eastern U.S. District Court
065. Kentucky Western U.S. District Court
066. Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court
067. Louisiana Middle U.S. District Court
068. Louisiana Western U.S. District Court
069. Maine U.S. District Court
070. Maryland U.S. District Court
071. Massachusetts U.S. District Court
072. Michigan Eastern U.S. District Court
073. Michigan Western U.S. District Court
074. Minnesota U.S. District Court
075. Mississippi Northern U.S. District Court
076. Mississippi Southern U.S. District Court
077. Missouri Eastern U.S. District Court
078. Missouri Western U.S. District Court
079. Montana U.S. District Court
080. Nebraska U.S. District Court
081. Nevada U.S. District Court
082. New Hampshire U.S. District Court
083. New Jersey U.S. District Court
084. New Mexico U.S. District Court
085. New York Eastern U.S. District Court
086. New York Northern U.S. District Court
087. New York Southern U.S. District Court
088. New York Western U.S. District Court
089. North Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
090. North Carolina Middle U.S. District Court
091. North Carolina Western U.S. District Court
092. North Dakota U.S. District Court
093. Northern Mariana Islands U.S. District Court
094. Ohio Northern U.S. District Court
095. Ohio Southern U.S. District Court
096. Oklahoma Eastern U.S. District Court
097. Oklahoma Northern U.S. District Court
098. Oklahoma Western U.S. District Court
099. Oregon U.S. District Court
100. Pennsylvania Eastern U.S. District Court
101. Pennsylvania Middle U.S. District Court
102. Pennsylvania Western U.S. District Court
103. Puerto Rico U.S. District Court
104. Rhode Island U.S. District Court
105. South Carolina U.S. District Court
106. South Dakota U.S. District Court
107. Tennessee Eastern U.S. District Court
108. Tennessee Middle U.S. District Court
109. Tennessee Western U.S. District Court
110. Texas Eastern U.S. District Court
111. Texas Northern U.S. District Court
112. Texas Southern U.S. District Court
113. Texas Western U.S. District Court
114. Utah U.S. District Court
115. Vermont U.S. District Court
116. Virgin Islands U.S. District Court
117. Virginia Eastern U.S. District Court
118. Virginia Western U.S. District Court
119. Washington Eastern U.S. District Court
120. Washington Western U.S. District Court
121. West Virginia Northern U.S. District Court
122. West Virginia Southern U.S. District Court
123. Wisconsin Eastern U.S. District Court
124. Wisconsin Western U.S. District Court
125. Wyoming U.S. District Court
126. Louisiana U.S. District Court
127. Washington U.S. District Court
128. West Virginia U.S. District Court
129. Illinois Eastern U.S. District Court
130. South Carolina Eastern U.S. District Court
131. South Carolina Western U.S. District Court
132. Alabama U.S. District Court
133. U.S. District Court for the Canal Zone
134. Georgia U.S. District Court
135. Illinois U.S. District Court
136. Indiana U.S. District Court
137. Iowa U.S. District Court
138. Michigan U.S. District Court
139. Mississippi U.S. District Court
140. Missouri U.S. District Court
141. New Jersey Eastern U.S. District Court (East Jersey U.S. District Court)
142. New Jersey Western U.S. District Court (West Jersey U.S. District Court)
143. New York U.S. District Court
144. North Carolina U.S. District Court
145. Ohio U.S. District Court
146. Pennsylvania U.S. District Court
147. Tennessee U.S. District Court
148. Texas U.S. District Court
149. Virginia U.S. District Court
150. Norfolk U.S. District Court
151. Wisconsin U.S. District Court
152. Kentucky U.S. Distrcrict Court
153. New Jersey U.S. District Court
154. California U.S. District Court
155. Florida U.S. District Court
156. Arkansas U.S. District Court
157. District of Orleans U.S. District Court
158. State Supreme Court
159. State Appellate Court
160. State Trial Court
161. Eastern Circuit (of the United States)
162. Middle Circuit (of the United States)
163. Southern Circuit (of the United States)
164. Alabama U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Alabama
165. Arkansas U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Arkansas
166. California U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of California
167. Connecticut U.S. Circuit for the District of Connecticut
168. Delaware U.S. Circuit for the District of Delaware
169. Florida U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Florida
170. Georgia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Georgia
171. Illinois U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Illinois
172. Indiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Indiana
173. Iowa U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Iowa
174. Kansas U.S. Circuit for the District of Kansas
175. Kentucky U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Kentucky
176. Louisiana U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Louisiana
177. Maine U.S. Circuit for the District of Maine
178. Maryland U.S. Circuit for the District of Maryland
179. Massachusetts U.S. Circuit for the District of Massachusetts
180. Michigan U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Michigan
181. Minnesota U.S. Circuit for the District of Minnesota
182. Mississippi U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Mississippi
183. Missouri U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Missouri
184. Nevada U.S. Circuit for the District of Nevada
185. New Hampshire U.S. Circuit for the District of New Hampshire
186. New Jersey U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New Jersey
187. New York U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of New York
188. North Carolina U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of North Carolina
189. Ohio U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Ohio
190. Oregon U.S. Circuit for the District of Oregon
191. Pennsylvania U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Pennsylvania
192. Rhode Island U.S. Circuit for the District of Rhode Island
193. South Carolina U.S. Circuit for the District of South Carolina
194. Tennessee U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Tennessee
195. Texas U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Texas
196. Vermont U.S. Circuit for the District of Vermont
197. Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Virginia
198. West Virginia U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of West Virginia
199. Wisconsin U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Wisconsin
200. Wyoming U.S. Circuit for the District of Wyoming
201. Circuit Court of the District of Columbia
202. Nebraska U.S. Circuit for the District of Nebraska
203. Colorado U.S. Circuit for the District of Colorado
204. Washington U.S. Circuit for (all) District(s) of Washington
205. Idaho U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Idaho
206. Montana U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Montana
207. Utah U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Utah
208. South Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of South Dakota
209. North Dakota U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of North Dakota
210. Oklahoma U.S. Circuit Court for (all) District(s) of Oklahoma
211. Court of Private Land Claims
212. United States Supreme Court
Answer: