The Supreme Court, which receives nearly 150 petitions a week, called certified petitions, must carefully select the cases it wants to spend time and effort on (Savage 981). If they didn't select them carefully, the nine justices would quickly be overwhelmed, so they put in place a program to review court cases to identify the small number to discuss. There are certain criteria that are used to judge whether a case will go to trial or not. The first is whether or not the lower courts decided the case based on another of the Supreme Court's decisions as they will investigate these in order to withhold or withdraw the conclusion they drew in their court case. Another is party alignment: Sometimes judges will choose cases that align with their party's beliefs, such as trying to get a death row inmate out of his death sentence. They also make statements about the “life” of the case – the Supreme Court only hears “live” cases – they do not try to go back in time and remark on a case that has long been decided (Savage 981). Finally, they like to take cases where the lower courts have not decided among themselves: these cases may have to do with interpretations of the law that have been left to the lower courts and should be specifically defined by the Supreme Court (Savage 982). The adjudication process under these criteria works like this: First, a company or organization that loses an appeal in the US court system can file a petition, called a "cert petition" (Savage 981). These petitions explain in thirty pages or less the process, opinions, and decision of the case. These are then given to lawyers, who create a “certification memo.” This is created when the clerk answers... in the middle of the paper... it was not accepted by many judges of the Court. One of the competing decisions was that because information acquired through the Stored Communications Act had to be obtained with a warrant, the Stored Communications Act was unconstitutional. This has been argued because, for ISPs to collect information on everyone who uses their services, they would have to submit a warrant to everyone they serve and do not yet have plausible cause. The case concluded with a decision that the government had violated Warshak's 4th Amendment rights and that any obtaining of information through the Stored Communications Act (deemed legal) would have to be obtained with a warrant. This confirmed Katz v. US stating that because Warshak used a private means of communication for his correspondence, a warrant must have been obtained to ask the ISP for the emails.