Article Three of the United States Constitution
Encyclopedia
Article Three of the United States Constitution
establishes the judicial branch of the federal government
. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States
and lower courts as created by Congress
.
Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into the separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Since all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality
of such a division. However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts."
The Supreme Court is the only federal court
that is required explicitly by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention
, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III
courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789
. Article I
courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court
. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. , the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court
for the District of Puerto Rico
by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson
in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court
in Puerto Rico
, created in the year 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.
The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan, was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President
Franklin Roosevelt
shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election
. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal
court system
, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court
for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.
, George W. English
, and Samuel B. Kent
chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.
to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson
took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. The power to abolish a court was next used in 1913, when the Congress abolished the Commerce Court
. In that case, however, Congress transferred the judges of the Commerce Court to the Circuit Courts.
and also appellate jurisdiction
upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury
in all criminal cases, except impeachment
cases.
must fall within the enumerated powers of the judiciary:
Article Three is not entirely self-executing concerning all the subject-matter over which federal courts have power. The Congress determines, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what cases can be appealed to each federal court, and Article Three also describes a few rare instances where a trial can occur in the Supreme Court.
, , the Supreme Court held that states were not immune from lawsuits by individuals due to the Supreme Court's Article III jurisdiction over them. The Eleventh Amendment
reversed this decision, and prevents a state from being sued in a federal court by a citizen of another state.
may be heard by the federal courts; the judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are precluded because of problems with standing
, mootness
, or ripeness
. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States
, , the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion
; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy."
in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state. In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction
, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison
, (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Often a court will assert a modest degree of power over a case for purposes of determining whether it has jurisdiction, and so the word "power" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "jurisdiction".
wrote,
Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.
A continuation of the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton [below] counterbalances the tone of "judicial supremacists" who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.
Hamilton continues. . .
Marbury v. Madison
involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson
, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams
. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall
had neglected to deliver commissions to the appointees. When James Madison
took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789
, the appointees, including William Marbury
, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus
, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions.
Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was led by now-Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789
was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving states or ambassadors. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch.
However, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, reminds readers that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent.
cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waivers his or her right. The trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.
The Sixth Amendment
has related provisions. The trial must be held in the "State and district" where the crime was committed and the district is set by Congress. The Sixth Amendment also contains other guarantees not related to the place of the trial.
The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.
and its punishment.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman
, , the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act
, or a confession by the accused in open court
, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695
. In Cramer v. United States
, , the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, , however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitness
es and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
Note: British law has changed. Since 1945, when the Treason Act
was passed, the rules of evidence and procedure are now the same as those as for a murder trial. Two eyewitnesses to the same act are no longer required.
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...
establishes the judicial branch of the federal government
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...
. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States
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...
and lower courts as created by 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....
.
Section 1: Federal courts
Section 1 vests the judicial power in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges.Number of courts
Section 1 explicitly requires one Supreme Court, but does not fix the number of justices that must be appointed to it. Article I, Clause 6 refers to a "Chief Justice" when it states "When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside." The number of justices has been fixed by statute, and at present the number is nine: one chief justice and eight associate justices.Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into the separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Since all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
of such a division. However, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes
Charles Evans Hughes
Charles Evans Hughes, Sr. was an American statesman, lawyer and Republican politician from New York. He served as the 36th Governor of New York , Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States , United States Secretary of State , a judge on the Court of International Justice , and...
wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts."
The Supreme Court is the only federal court
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:...
that is required explicitly by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention
Philadelphia Convention
The Constitutional Convention took place from May 14 to September 17, 1787, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to address problems in governing the United States of America, which had been operating under the Articles of Confederation following independence from...
, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III
Article I and Article III tribunals
In the United States, the American legal system includes both state courts and United States federal courts. The federal tribunals may be an Article III tribunal or another adjudicative body classified as an Article I or an Article IV tribunal...
courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary...
. Article I
Article I and Article III tribunals
In the United States, the American legal system includes both state courts and United States federal courts. The federal tribunals may be an Article III tribunal or another adjudicative body classified as an Article I or an Article IV tribunal...
courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court
United States Tax Court
The United States Tax Court is a federal trial court of record established by Congress under Article I of the U.S. Constitution, section 8 of which provides that the Congress has the power to "constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court"...
. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. , the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the 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...
for the District of Puerto Rico
United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico is the federal district court whose jurisdiction comprises the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The court is based in San Juan. The main building is the Clemente Ruiz Nazario U.S. Courthouse located in the Hato Rey district of San Juan...
by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by 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...
in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court
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...
in Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico , officially the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico , is an unincorporated territory of the United States, located in the northeastern Caribbean, east of the Dominican Republic and west of both the United States Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands.Puerto Rico comprises an...
, created in the year 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.
The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, frequently called the court-packing plan, was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President
President of the United States
The President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
Franklin Roosevelt
Franklin D. Roosevelt
Franklin Delano Roosevelt , also known by his initials, FDR, was the 32nd President of the United States and a central figure in world events during the mid-20th century, leading the United States during a time of worldwide economic crisis and world war...
shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election
United States presidential election, 1936
The United States presidential election of 1936 was the most lopsided presidential election in the history of the United States in terms of electoral votes. In terms of the popular vote, it was the third biggest victory since the election of 1820, which was not seriously contested.The election took...
. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of 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...
court system
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:...
, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court
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...
for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.
Tenure
The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess). The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. DelahayMark W. Delahay
Mark W. Delahay was a United States federal judge, and an early supporter of the Republican Party. A friend of Abraham Lincoln, Delahay was appointed by Lincoln to the federal bench, but he resigned a decade later under threat of impeachment, brought about by allegations of alcoholism.- Early life...
, George W. English
George W. English
George Washington English, Sr. was a United States federal judge.Born near Vienna, Illinois, English received an LL.B. from Illinois Wesleyan University in 1891. He was chief deputy sheriff of Johnson County, Illinois from 1891 to 1892. He engaged in the private practice of law in Vienna, Illinois...
, and Samuel B. Kent
Samuel B. Kent
Samuel B. Kent was a U.S District Court judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in the single-judge Galveston Division covering Brazoria, Chambers, Galveston, and Matagorda Counties. He was nominated by President George H.W...
chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.
Salaries
The compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be increased, during their continuance in office. The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished. The Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John AdamsJohn Adams
John Adams was an American lawyer, statesman, diplomat and political theorist. A leading champion of independence in 1776, he was the second President of the United States...
to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom , the third President of the United States and founder of the University of Virginia...
took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. The power to abolish a court was next used in 1913, when the Congress abolished the Commerce Court
United States Commerce Court
The Commerce Court of the United States was a brief-lived federal trial court. It was created by the Mann-Elkins Act in 1910 and abolished a mere three years later. The Commerce Court was a specialized court, given jurisdiction over cases arising from orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission...
. In that case, however, Congress transferred the judges of the Commerce Court to the Circuit Courts.
Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury
Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdictionOriginal jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:...
and also appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction is the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right...
upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury
Trial by Jury
Trial by Jury is a comic opera in one act, with music by Arthur Sullivan and libretto by W. S. Gilbert. It was first produced on 25 March 1875, at London's Royalty Theatre, where it initially ran for 131 performances and was considered a hit, receiving critical praise and outrunning its...
in all criminal cases, except impeachment
Impeachment
Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as other punishment....
cases.
Powers
Federal courts are courts of limited power and limited jurisdiction, as distinguished from general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This limited subject-matter jurisdictionSubject-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....
must fall within the enumerated powers of the judiciary:
- Federal questionFederal question jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction is a term used in the United States law of civil procedure to refer to the situation in which a United States federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear a civil case because the plaintiff has alleged a violation of the Constitution or law of the...
: power to decide cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties - Diplomats: power to decide cases involving ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls
- WaterAdmiralty lawAdmiralty 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...
: power to decide cases involving navigable waters - Federal party: power to decide cases in which the United States is a party
- InterstateTerritorial disputeA territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states or over the possession or control of land by a new state and occupying power after it has conquered the land from a former state no longer currently recognized by the new state.-Context and...
: power to decide cases between two or more states - DiversityDiversity jurisdictionIn the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction in civil procedure in which a United States district court has the power to hear a civil case where the persons that are parties are "diverse" in citizenship, which generally indicates that they are...
: power to decide cases between citizens of different states - Land grantLand grantA land grant is a gift of real estate – land or its privileges – made by a government or other authority as a reward for services to an individual, especially in return for military service...
: power to decide cases between citizens of the same state claiming land under the grants of different states - Alienage: power to decide cases between
- a state and a foreign state;
- citizens of a state and a foreign state;
- citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign state; or
- a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects of a foreign state, where the state is the initial plaintiffEleventh Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
.
Article Three is not entirely self-executing concerning all the subject-matter over which federal courts have power. The Congress determines, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what cases can be appealed to each federal court, and Article Three also describes a few rare instances where a trial can occur in the Supreme Court.
Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity
In Chisholm v. GeorgiaChisholm v. Georgia
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 , is considered the first United States Supreme Court case of significance and impact. Given its date, there is little available legal precedent...
, , the Supreme Court held that states were not immune from lawsuits by individuals due to the Supreme Court's Article III jurisdiction over them. The Eleventh Amendment
Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794, and was ratified on February 7, 1795, deals with each state's sovereign immunity. This amendment was adopted in order to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v...
reversed this decision, and prevents a state from being sued in a federal court by a citizen of another state.
Cases and controversies
Only actual cases and controversiesCase or controversy
The Case or Controversy Clause of Article III of the United States Constitution has been deemed to impose a requirement that United States federal courts are not permitted to hear cases that do not pose an actual controversy — that is, an actual dispute between adverse parties which is capable of...
may be heard by the federal courts; the judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are precluded because of problems with standing
Standing (law)
In law, standing or locus standi is the term for the ability of a party to demonstrate to the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged to support that party's participation in the case...
, mootness
Mootness
In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law...
, or ripeness
Ripeness
In United States law, ripeness refers to the readiness of a case for litigation; "a claim is not ripe for adjudication if it rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all." For example, if a law of ambiguous quality has been enacted but never...
. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have some interest genuinely at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States
Muskrat v. United States
Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 , is a case that appears in virtually every constitutional law casebook published, because of its delineation of the authority of United States federal courts to hear certain kinds of cases.-Facts:...
, , the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion
Advisory opinion
An advisory opinion is an opinion issued by a court that does not have the effect of adjudicating a specific legal case, but merely advises on the constitutionality or interpretation of a law. Some countries have procedures by which the executive or legislative branches may certify important...
; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy."
Original and appellate jurisdiction
Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdictionOriginal jurisdiction
The original jurisdiction of a court is the power to hear a case for the first time, as opposed to appellate jurisdiction, when a court has the power to review a lower court's decision.-France:...
in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state. In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction
Appellate jurisdiction is the power of the Supreme Court to review decisions and change outcomes of decisions of lower courts. Most appellate jurisdiction is legislatively created, and may consist of appeals by leave of the appellate court or by right...
, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring...
, (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Often a court will assert a modest degree of power over a case for purposes of determining whether it has jurisdiction, and so the word "power" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "jurisdiction".
Judicial review
No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review, but the Framers did contemplate the idea. Alexander HamiltonAlexander Hamilton
Alexander Hamilton was a Founding Father, soldier, economist, political philosopher, one of America's first constitutional lawyers and the first United States Secretary of the Treasury...
wrote,
The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.
A continuation of the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton [below] counterbalances the tone of "judicial supremacists" who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Hamilton continues. . .
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison
Marbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring...
involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson was the principal author of the United States Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom , the third President of the United States and founder of the University of Virginia...
, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams
John Adams
John Adams was an American lawyer, statesman, diplomat and political theorist. A leading champion of independence in 1776, he was the second President of the United States...
. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall
John 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...
had neglected to deliver commissions to the appointees. When James Madison
James Madison
James Madison, Jr. was an American statesman and political theorist. He was the fourth President of the United States and is hailed as the “Father of the Constitution” for being the primary author of the United States Constitution and at first an opponent of, and then a key author of the United...
took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary...
, the appointees, including William Marbury
William Marbury
William Marbury was one of the famous "Midnight Judges". Due to President John Adams's work in the night before he was to leave office, Marbury was to be appointed a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. He was appointed there to give the Federalists a stronghold in the judicial...
, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus
Mandamus
A writ of mandamus or mandamus , or sometimes mandate, is the name of one of the prerogative writs in the common law, and is "issued by a superior court to compel a lower court or a government officer to perform mandatory or purely ministerial duties correctly".Mandamus is a judicial remedy which...
, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions.
Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was led by now-Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789
Judiciary Act of 1789
The United States Judiciary Act of 1789 was a landmark statute adopted on September 24, 1789 in the first session of the First United States Congress establishing the U.S. federal judiciary...
was unconstitutional, as it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving states or ambassadors. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch.
However, Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, reminds readers that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent.
Trial by jury
Article III, Section 2, provides that crimes, except impeachmentImpeachment
Impeachment is a formal process in which an official is accused of unlawful activity, the outcome of which, depending on the country, may include the removal of that official from office as well as other punishment....
cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waivers his or her right. The trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress.
The Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
has related provisions. The trial must be held in the "State and district" where the crime was committed and the district is set by Congress. The Sixth Amendment also contains other guarantees not related to the place of the trial.
The Senate has the sole power to try all impeachments.
Section 3: Treason
Section 3 defines treasonTreason
In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a...
and its punishment.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman
Ex parte Bollman
Ex parte Bollman, , was a case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Three main points were established in this early and formative civil liberties case:...
, , the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act
Overt Act
In criminal law, an overt act , an open act, one that can be clearly proved by evidence, and from which criminal intent can be inferred, as opposed to a mere intention in the mind to commit a crime...
, or a confession by the accused in open court
In open court
In open court is a legal term in the United States defined by the appearance by a party or their attorney in a public court session such as during a trial...
, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695
Treason Act 1695
The Treason Act 1695 is an Act of the Parliament of England which laid down rules of evidence and procedure in high treason trials. It was passed by the English Parliament but was extended to cover Scotland in 1708 and Ireland in 1821...
. In Cramer v. United States
Cramer v. United States
Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States reviewed the conviction of Anthony Cramer, a German-born naturalized citizen, for treason...
, , the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses." In Haupt v. United States, , however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitness
Witness
A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about an event, or in the criminal justice systems usually a crime, through his or her senses and can help certify important considerations about the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event first hand is known as an eyewitness...
es and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.
Note: British law has changed. Since 1945, when the Treason Act
Treason Act 1945
The Treason Act 1945 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.It was introduced into the House of Lords as a purely procedural statute, whose sole purpose was to abolish the old and highly technical procedure in cases of treason, and assimilate it to...
was passed, the rules of evidence and procedure are now the same as those as for a murder trial. Two eyewitnesses to the same act are no longer required.