Article I and Article III tribunals
Encyclopedia
In the United States
, the American legal system
includes both state courts and United States federal courts
. The federal
tribunal
s may be an Article III tribunal (federal court) or another adjudicative
body classified as an Article I or an Article IV tribunal. These courts are described in reference to the article of the Constitution
from which the tribunal's authority stems.
and the inferior courts established by the Congress
, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals
, the 94 United States district court
s, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. They constitute the judicial branch
of the government (which is defined by Article III of the Constitution
).
Under the Constitution, Congress can vest these courts with jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution or federal law
and certain cases involving disputes between citizens of different states or countries. Article III includes provisions to protect the courts against influence by the other branches of government: judges may not have their salaries reduced during their tenure in office, and their appointment is for life (barring impeachment and removal for bad behavior). See also United States federal judge
.
The Supreme Court has ruled that only Article III courts may render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private property rights, with limited exceptions, as discussed below.
Article I judges are not subject to the Article III protections. For example, these judges do not enjoy life tenure, and Congress may reduce their salaries.
The existence of Article I tribunals has been controversial, and their power has been challenged before the United States Supreme Court, which has determined that Article I tribunals may exist, but that their power must be circumscribed and, when a potential deprivation of life, liberty, property, or property interest is involved, their decisions are often subject to ultimate review in an Article III court.
s are tribunals established in territories of the United States
by the United States Congress
, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution
, the Territorial Clause. Most United States territorial courts are defunct because the territory under their jurisdiction have become states or been retroceded.
The High Court of American Samoa
, whose judges and justices are appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior
, is an example of an Article IV tribunal.
Among the United States territorial courts still in existence are:
Article IV judges do not have the authority to decide petitioners’ appeals or be appointed to a United States Court of Appeals
. In Nguyen v. United States (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that a panel of the Court of Appeals consisting of two Article III judges and one Article IV judge did not have the authority to decide petitioners’ appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the course of the opinion from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra) declared( p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):
'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'
On September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.” The importance of tenure is stated in GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK ET AL. 370 U.S. 530 (1962):
Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 459-460: ". . . the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should [370 U.S. 530, 597] hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included."
In Balzac v. Porto Rico
, (1922) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as an argument of non-incorporation:
"The United States District Court (in Puerto Rico) is not a true United States court established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, §3, of the Constitution, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States."
In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
, supra, the court made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:
In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson
signed , , which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court. This Act of Congress was not conducted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, but rather under Article III. This marks the first and only occasion in United States history in which Congress establishes an Article III Court in a territory other than the District of Columbia. From then on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. Like their mainland brethren they are entitled to life tenure
and salary protection.
The reason given for this [law] was that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico ‘is in its jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities the same
as the U.S. district courts in the (several) states’.”). This important change in the federal judicialstructure of the island was implemented not as a request of the Commonwealth government, but rather at the repeated request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Senate Report No.
1504, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90.
The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston.
in the case of American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), which is sometimes referred to as Canter, after a claimant in the case. In this case, a court in what was then the Territory of Florida
had made a ruling on the disposition of some bales of cotton that had been recovered from a sunken ship. This clearly fell into the realm of admiralty law
, which is part of the federal judicial power according to Article III of the Constitution. Yet the judges of the Florida territorial court had four-year terms, not the lifetime appointments required by Article III of the Constitution. Marshall's solution was to declare that territorial courts were established under Article I of the constitution. As such, they could not exercise the federal judicial power, and therefore the law that placed admiralty cases in their jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
Ever since Canter, the federal courts have been wrestling with the division between legislative and judicial courts. The Supreme Court most thoroughly delineated the permissible scope of Article I tribunals in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
, 458 U.S. 50 (1982), striking down the statute
that created the original U.S. bankruptcy court. The Court noted in that opinion that the framers of the Constitution had developed a scheme of separation of powers
which clearly required that the judiciary
be kept independent of the other two branches via the mechanism of lifetime appointments. However, the Court noted three situations (based on historical understanding) in which Congress could give judicial power to non-Article III courts:
The Court also found that Congress has the power under Article I to create adjunct tribunals, so long as the "essential attributes of judicial power" stay in Article III courts. This power derives from two sources. First, when Congress creates rights, it can require those asserting such rights to go through an Article I tribunal. Second, Congress can create non-Article III tribunals to help Article III courts deal with their workload, but only if the Article I tribunals are under the control of the Article III courts. The bankruptcy courts, as well as the tribunals of magistrate judges
who decide some issues in the district courts, fall within this category of "adjunct" tribunals. All actions heard in an Article I tribunal are subject to de novo review
in the supervising Article III court, which retains the exclusive power to make and enforce final judgments.
Pursuant to Congress’ authority under Article IV, §3, of the Constitution to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;" Congress may create territorial courts and vest them with subject-matter jurisdiction
over causes arising under both federal law and local law.
The Supreme Court noted in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), that parties to litigation may voluntarily waive their right to an Article III tribunal and thereby submit themselves to a binding judgment from an Article I tribunal.
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, the American legal system
Law of the United States
The law of the United States consists of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States...
includes both state courts and United States federal courts
United States federal courts
The United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...
. The federal
Federal government of the United States
The federal government of the United States is the national government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that is the United States of America. The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government: a legislative, an executive and a judiciary. These branches and...
tribunal
Tribunal
A tribunal in the general sense is any person or institution with the authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes—whether or not it is called a tribunal in its title....
s may be an Article III tribunal (federal court) or another adjudicative
Adjudication
Adjudication is the legal process by which an arbiter or judge reviews evidence and argumentation including legal reasoning set forth by opposing parties or litigants to come to a decision which determines rights and obligations between the parties involved....
body classified as an Article I or an Article IV tribunal. These courts are described in reference to the article of the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
from which the tribunal's authority stems.
Article III tribunals
Article III tribunals consist entirely of certain federal courts. These courts are the Supreme Court of the United StatesSupreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
and the inferior courts established by the Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
, which currently are the 13 United States courts of appeals
United States courts of appeals
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system...
, the 94 United States district court
United States district court
The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States...
s, and the U.S. Court of International Trade. They constitute the judicial branch
Judiciary
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes...
of the government (which is defined by Article III of the Constitution
United States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
).
Under the Constitution, Congress can vest these courts with jurisdiction to hear cases involving the Constitution or federal law
Law of the United States
The law of the United States consists of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States...
and certain cases involving disputes between citizens of different states or countries. Article III includes provisions to protect the courts against influence by the other branches of government: judges may not have their salaries reduced during their tenure in office, and their appointment is for life (barring impeachment and removal for bad behavior). See also United States federal judge
United States federal judge
In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate in accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution....
.
The Supreme Court has ruled that only Article III courts may render final judgments in cases involving life, liberty, and private property rights, with limited exceptions, as discussed below.
Article I tribunals
Article I tribunals consist of certain federal courts and other forms of adjudicative bodies. These tribunals, as created by Congress, are of various forms, and have differing levels of independence from the executive and legislative branches. They can be Article I Courts (also called legislative courts) set up by Congress to review agency decisions, military courts-martial appeal courts, ancillary courts with judges appointed by Article III appeals court judges, or administrative agencies.Article I judges are not subject to the Article III protections. For example, these judges do not enjoy life tenure, and Congress may reduce their salaries.
The existence of Article I tribunals has been controversial, and their power has been challenged before the United States Supreme Court, which has determined that Article I tribunals may exist, but that their power must be circumscribed and, when a potential deprivation of life, liberty, property, or property interest is involved, their decisions are often subject to ultimate review in an Article III court.
Article IV tribunals
The United States territorial courtUnited States territorial court
The United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution, the Territorial Clause...
s are tribunals established in territories of the United States
United States territory
United States territory is any extent of region under the jurisdiction of the federal government of the United States, including all waters including all U.S. Naval carriers. The United States has traditionally proclaimed the sovereign rights for exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing its...
by the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution
Article Four of the United States Constitution relates to the states. The article outlines the duties states have to each other, as well as those the federal government has to the states...
, the Territorial Clause. Most United States territorial courts are defunct because the territory under their jurisdiction have become states or been retroceded.
The High Court of American Samoa
High Court of American Samoa
The High Court of American Samoa is the highest court below the United States Supreme Court in American Samoa. The Court is located in the capital of Fagatogo. It consists of a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice, appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior...
, whose judges and justices are appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior
United States Secretary of the Interior
The United States Secretary of the Interior is the head of the United States Department of the Interior.The US Department of the Interior should not be confused with the concept of Ministries of the Interior as used in other countries...
, is an example of an Article IV tribunal.
Among the United States territorial courts still in existence are:
- United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands
- District Court of GuamDistrict Court of GuamThe District Court of Guam is a United States territorial court with jurisdiction over the Territory of Guam. It sits in the capital, Hagåtña....
- District Court of the Virgin IslandsDistrict Court of the Virgin IslandsThe District Court of the United States Virgin Islands is a United States territorial court with jurisdiction over the United States Virgin Islands, a United States territory and more specifically an insular area that is an unincorporated organized territory. The court sits in both St. Croix and...
Article IV judges do not have the authority to decide petitioners’ appeals or be appointed to a United States Court of Appeals
United States court of appeals
The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system...
. In Nguyen v. United States (2003), the Supreme Court ruled that a panel of the Court of Appeals consisting of two Article III judges and one Article IV judge did not have the authority to decide petitioners’ appeals.
The U.S. Supreme Court in the course of the opinion from Rassmussen Vs The United States (197 U.S. 596, 524) v. U.S. (Supra) declared( p. 352, L. ed. p. 186, Sup. Ct. Rep. p. 1119):
'Alaska is one of the territories of the United States. It was so designated in that order [referring to the order of this court assigning to the ninth circuit], and has always been so regarded. And the court established by the act of 1884 is the court of last resort within the limits of that territory. It is, therefore, in every substantial sense, the supreme court of that territory.'
On September 12, 1966, 80 Stat. 764, the District Court of Puerto Rico became a Constitutional Court: “This act granted life tenure during good behavior to future appointments to the two judgeships for the District of Puerto Rico, thus placing the court in the same status as other U.S. district courts.” The importance of tenure is stated in GLIDDEN COMPANY v. ZDANOK ET AL. 370 U.S. 530 (1962):
Tenure that is guaranteed by the Constitution is a badge of a judge of an Article III court. The argument that mere statutory tenure is sufficient for judges of Article III courts was authoritatively answered in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., supra, at 459-460: ". . . the argument is fallacious. It mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred. Nor has there been any settled practice on the part of Congress which gives special significance to the absence or presence of a provision respecting the tenure of judges. This may be illustrated by two citations. The same Congress that created the Court of Customs Appeals made provision for five additional circuit judges and declared that they should [370 U.S. 530, 597] hold their offices during good behavior; and yet the status of the judges was the same as it would have been had that declaration been omitted. In creating courts for some of the Territories Congress failed to include a provision fixing the tenure of the judges; but the courts became legislative courts just as if such a provision had been included."
In Balzac v. Porto Rico
Balzac v. Porto Rico
Balzac v. Porto Rico, , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that certain provisions of the U.S. Constitution did not apply to territories not incorporated into the union. It originated when Jesús M. Balzac was prosecuted for criminal libel in a district court of Puerto...
, (1922) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as an argument of non-incorporation:
"The United States District Court (in Puerto Rico) is not a true United States court established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, §3, of the Constitution, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States."
In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
Glidden Co. v. Zdanok , , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that judges of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were judges created under Article III of the Constitution...
, supra, the court made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:
Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145 , 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18
In 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson
Lyndon B. Johnson
Lyndon Baines Johnson , often referred to as LBJ, was the 36th President of the United States after his service as the 37th Vice President of the United States...
signed , , which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court. This Act of Congress was not conducted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, but rather under Article III. This marks the first and only occasion in United States history in which Congress establishes an Article III Court in a territory other than the District of Columbia. From then on, judges appointed to serve on the Puerto Rico federal district court have been Article III judges appointed under the Constitution of the United States. Like their mainland brethren they are entitled to life tenure
Life tenure
A life tenure or service during good behaviour is a term of office that lasts for the office holder's lifetime , unless the office holder is removed from office for cause under extraordinary circumstances or chooses to resign.Judges and members of some upper chambers have life tenure...
and salary protection.
The reason given for this [law] was that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico ‘is in its jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities the same
as the U.S. district courts in the (several) states’.”). This important change in the federal judicialstructure of the island was implemented not as a request of the Commonwealth government, but rather at the repeated request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Senate Report No.
1504, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90.
The District Court of Puerto Rico is now established under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Needless to say the District Court of Puerto Rico belongs to the First District Court in Boston.
Supreme Court rulings limiting the power of Article I and Article IV tribunals
The concept of a legislative court was first defined by Chief Justice John MarshallJohn Marshall
John Marshall was the Chief Justice of the United States whose court opinions helped lay the basis for American constitutional law and made the Supreme Court of the United States a coequal branch of government along with the legislative and executive branches...
in the case of American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton
American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 26 U.S. 511 , was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case involved the validity of a local court established by Congress in the Florida Territory whose judges lacked life tenure, as mandated by Article III of the Constitution...
, 1 Pet. 511 (1828), which is sometimes referred to as Canter, after a claimant in the case. In this case, a court in what was then the Territory of Florida
Florida
Florida is a state in the southeastern United States, located on the nation's Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is bordered to the west by the Gulf of Mexico, to the north by Alabama and Georgia and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. With a population of 18,801,310 as measured by the 2010 census, it...
had made a ruling on the disposition of some bales of cotton that had been recovered from a sunken ship. This clearly fell into the realm of admiralty law
Admiralty law
Admiralty law is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans...
, which is part of the federal judicial power according to Article III of the Constitution. Yet the judges of the Florida territorial court had four-year terms, not the lifetime appointments required by Article III of the Constitution. Marshall's solution was to declare that territorial courts were established under Article I of the constitution. As such, they could not exercise the federal judicial power, and therefore the law that placed admiralty cases in their jurisdiction was unconstitutional.
Ever since Canter, the federal courts have been wrestling with the division between legislative and judicial courts. The Supreme Court most thoroughly delineated the permissible scope of Article I tribunals in Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.
Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts Northern Pipeline Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50 (1982), was a case in which the...
, 458 U.S. 50 (1982), striking down the statute
Statute
A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy. The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations...
that created the original U.S. bankruptcy court. The Court noted in that opinion that the framers of the Constitution had developed a scheme of separation of powers
Separation of powers
The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias politica principle, is a model for the governance of a state. The model was first developed in ancient Greece and came into widespread use by the Roman Republic as part of the unmodified Constitution of the Roman Republic...
which clearly required that the judiciary
Judiciary
The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state. The judiciary also provides a mechanism for the resolution of disputes...
be kept independent of the other two branches via the mechanism of lifetime appointments. However, the Court noted three situations (based on historical understanding) in which Congress could give judicial power to non-Article III courts:
- Courts for non-state areas (U.S. territories and the District of ColumbiaWashington, D.C.Washington, D.C., formally the District of Columbia and commonly referred to as Washington, "the District", or simply D.C., is the capital of the United States. On July 16, 1790, the United States Congress approved the creation of a permanent national capital as permitted by the U.S. Constitution....
) in which Congress is acting as both local and national government. - Military courts (or courts-martial), under the historical understanding and clearly laid out exceptions in the Constitution.
- Legislative courts established under the premise that, where Congress could have simply given the Executive Branch the power to make a decision, it has the lesser power to create a tribunal to make that decision. This power is limited to adjudication of public rights, such as the settling of disputes between the citizens and the government.
The Court also found that Congress has the power under Article I to create adjunct tribunals, so long as the "essential attributes of judicial power" stay in Article III courts. This power derives from two sources. First, when Congress creates rights, it can require those asserting such rights to go through an Article I tribunal. Second, Congress can create non-Article III tribunals to help Article III courts deal with their workload, but only if the Article I tribunals are under the control of the Article III courts. The bankruptcy courts, as well as the tribunals of magistrate judges
United States magistrate judge
In the United States federal courts, magistrate judges are appointed to assist United States district court judges in the performance of their duties...
who decide some issues in the district courts, fall within this category of "adjunct" tribunals. All actions heard in an Article I tribunal are subject to de novo review
Trial de novo
In law, the expression trial de novo means a "new trial" by a different tribunal...
in the supervising Article III court, which retains the exclusive power to make and enforce final judgments.
Pursuant to Congress’ authority under Article IV, §3, of the Constitution to "make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;" Congress may create territorial courts and vest them with subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relating to a specific subject matter. For instance, bankruptcy court only has the authority to hear bankruptcy cases....
over causes arising under both federal law and local law.
The Supreme Court noted in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor
Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an administrative agency may, in some cases, exert jurisdiction over state-law counterclaims.-Background:...
, 478 U.S. 833 (1986), that parties to litigation may voluntarily waive their right to an Article III tribunal and thereby submit themselves to a binding judgment from an Article I tribunal.
List of Article I, Article III and Article IV tribunals
| Article I tribunals | Article III tribunals | Article IV tribunals |
|---|---|---|
|
Supreme Court of the United States The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases... United States court of appeals The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal court system... United States district court The United States district courts are the general trial courts of the United States federal court system. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court, which is a court of law, equity, and admiralty. There is a United States bankruptcy court associated with each United States... s United States Court of International Trade The United States Court of International Trade is an Article III court, with full powers in law and equity. The Customs Court Act of 1980 replaced the old United States Customs Court with the United States Court of International Trade. The Court has nine sitting Judges, as well as Senior Judges... |
United States territorial court The United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution, the Territorial Clause... High Court of American Samoa The High Court of American Samoa is the highest court below the United States Supreme Court in American Samoa. The Court is located in the capital of Fagatogo. It consists of a Chief Justice and an Associate Justice, appointed by the United States Secretary of the Interior... |
See also
- Chapter III CourtChapter III CourtIn Australian constitutional law, Chapter Three Courts or Chapter III Courts are courts of law which are a part of the Australian federal judiciary, and thus are able to discharge Commonwealth judicial power...
— analogous concept in Australian lawLaw of AustraliaThe law of Australia consists of the Australian common law , federal laws enacted by the Parliament of Australia, and laws enacted by the Parliaments of the Australian states and territories... - United States territorial courtUnited States territorial courtThe United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution, the Territorial Clause...
- State court (United States)
- United States federal courtsUnited States federal courtsThe United States federal courts make up the judiciary branch of federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government.-Categories:...