U.S.

JUDICIARY

Project submitted to:

Mrs. Nisha Bind

(Faculty of Political Science)

Project submitted by:

Sakshi Dhruw

Semester IV , Roll No.136

Section A

15.02.2017

HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

RAIPUR, C.G.
 DECLARATION

I, Sakshi Dhruw hereby declare that the project work entitled ‘U.S.

Judiciary’ submitted to the HNLU Raipur, is a record of an original work done by me

under the guidance of Mrs. Nisha Bind, Faculty of Political science a n d t h i s

project has been submitted for the partial fulfilment of

t h e requirements for the award of the degree of BA-LLB.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I feel highly elated to work on the topic ‘US Judiciary’.

No creation in this world is a sole effort, nor is this work of mine. The practical
realization of this project has obligated the assistance of many persons. First of all I
want to thank my faculty teacher Mrs. Nisha Bind for his invaluable suggestions and
guidance. It would have not been possible for me to frame this project of mine without
his support.

I would like to thank my family and friends without whose support and
encouragement, this project would not have been a reality.

I take this opportunity to also thank the University and the Vice Chancellor for
providing extensive database resources in the Library and through Internet. Some
typing errors might have crept in, which are deeply regretted. I would be grateful to
receive comments and suggestions to further improve this project report.

Sakshi Dhruw

Semester IV

iii
 CONTENTS

 Declaration..........................................................................................................ii
 Acknowledgement..............................................................................................iii
 Introduction......................................................................................................1-2
 Research Question...............................................................................................3
 Objectives............................................................................................................3
 Scope ..................................................................................................................3
 Research Methodology.......................................................................................3
 Organisation of Study........................................................................................4
 The Federal Court System..................................................................................5
 Structure Of The Federal Courts........................................................................6
 Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts...................................................................12
 Check And Balances.........................................................................................14
 Other Federal Courts........................................................................................17
 Conclusion .......................................................................................................19
 References........................................................................................................20
 INTRODUCTION

No government can live and flourish without having as part of its system of
administration of civil affairs some permanent human force, invested with
acknowledged and supreme authority, and always in a position to exercise it promptly
and efficiently, in case of need, on any proper call. It must be permanent in its
character. Only what is permanent will have the confidence of the people. It must
always be ready to act on the instant. The unexpected is continually happening, and it
is emergencies that put governments to the test.

The judiciary holds this position in the United States. The institutions which underlie
and characterize it, both of the United States and of each of the States, considered by
itself, are the outgrowth of those of the thirteen English colonies on the Atlantic coast,
which declared their independence in 1776.

The United States is renowned for having one of the most sophisticated judicial
systems in the world. Every day thousands of people, including law enforcement
officers, lawyers, judges, government officials and even accused criminals, take part in
this system, hoping to settle disputes and work for justice. What makes this system
even more remarkable is that it is able to operate successfully in a country as large and
diverse as the United States. One of the keys to this success is a balanced and carefully
ordered hierarchy: Several different federal courts control issues relating to federal law
and each state has its own set of courts that can adapt to the needs of its people.

Of course, it’s all a bit more complicated than that and no system works perfectly, but
learning how the judicial system works can be useful in case you ever need to file a
law suit, defend yourself in court, claim damages from the government or even pay a
traffic ticket. In this article we’ll talk about what the different types of courts do, how
judges are appointed and the basics of jury duty. Let’s start by looking at the essential
elements of the U.S. judicial system.

1
RESEARCH QUESTION

 What is the nature and structure of federal court system ?

 What is the jurisdiction of federal court ?
 How the federal courts operate in the Constitutional system of checks and
balances with the executive and legislative branches of government ?
 What is the role of State Courts and other federal courts ?

OBJECTIVE

The main objective of this project research is to understand different aspects of US

Judiciary.

The other secondary objectives are-

 To know the nature and structure of federal court system

 To understand the jurisdiction of federal court
 To understand how federal courts operate in the Constitutional system of
checks and balances with the executive and legislative branches of government
 To know the role of State Courts and other federal courts

SCOPE

The study helps to determine the nature, role ,structure of federal court system and
about its jurisdiction in various courts and how federal courts do checks and balances
with the executive and legislative branches of government. And also about the role of
state courts and other federal courts.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This Research Project is descriptive in nature. Accumulation of the information on the

topic include wide use of secondary sources like books, e-articles etc. The matter from

2
these sources have been compiled and analysed to understand the concept from the
grass root level.

Websites, dictionaries and articles have also been referred.

The structure of the project, as instructed by the Faculty of Political Science has been
adhered to and the same has been helpful in giving the project a fine finish off.

ORGANISATION OF STUDY
PART-A –i.Introduction
ii. Research question
iii. Objectives

PART B- i.The federal court system

ii.Structure Of The Federal Courts
iii.Jurisdiction Of The Federal Courts
iv.Check And Balances
v. Other Federal Courts

4
 The Federal Court System
The Constitution grants Congress power to create and abolish federal courts, although
the United States Supreme Court is the only court that cannot be abolished. Congress
also has the authority to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary
system.

In general, federal courts have jurisdiction over civil actions and criminal cases
dealing with federal law. Jurisdiction can overlap, and certain cases which that may be
heard in federal court can instead be heard in state court. Federal courts can only
interpret the law in the context of deciding a dispute. A court cannot approach an issue
on its own or in a hypothetical context.

Federal judges, with a few exceptions, are appointed for life -- until they die, retire or
resign. The Constitution calls for federal judges to act with “good behavior,” and they
can be impeached for improper or criminal conduct. A strict code of conduct exists for
federal judges, guiding their behavior. Many judges are also considered scholars in
their field and spend time speaking, working in the community, teaching or writing in
legal journals. Judges who retire, known as senior judges, may be called up on a full-
or part-time basis to help with cases. Senior judges handle 15 percent to 20 percent of
the workload for appellate and district courts.

Appointed by the President, federal judges are confirmed by the Senate and have their
pay determined by Congress. Most federal judges make about the same amount as
members of Congress ($150,000 or more), though like some members of Congress,
many federal judges have previous experience in more lucrative positions with large
law firms. The Constitution doesn’t actually require that judges are lawyers, but so far
all federal judges have been members of the Bartrained lawyers.

Each federal court has a chief judge who handles some administrative responsibilities
in addition to his or her regular duties. The chief judge is usually the judge who has
served on that court the longest. Chief justices for district and appeals courts must be
under age 65 and may serve as chief judge for seven years but not beyond age 70.Each

5
court also has its own staff of employees, including court reporters, clerks and
assistants, who are vital to the operation of the court. A court’s primary administrative
officer is the Clerk of the Court, who maintains records, is responsible for the court’s
finances, provides support services, sends official notices and summons, administers
the jury system and manages interpreters and court reporters.

Structure of the Federal Courts

As the diagram shows, the structure of the federal courts is roughly pyramidal. At the
top of the pyramid is the Supreme Court. The Federal Courts of Appeal are the middle
part of the pyramid and the Federal District Courts are the lowest part of the pyramid.

 The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. The Supreme Court is

6
often called "the highest court in the land" because it hears appeals from state courts as
well as federal courts. The Supreme Court has nine justices i.e/ Chief Justice and eight
Associate Justices and begins its term on the first Monday in October of each year,
usually ending in late June or early July. Because the Supreme Court was the first
court established in the federal system, it has the most significant history of any
federal court, as well as some of the riches.The Supreme Court's decisions in landmark
cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, West Coast Hotel v.
Parrish, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka have shaped America's history
and ideals.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

There are three separate routes that cases follow to reach the Supreme Court. The first,
and least common, is a case under the Court's "original jurisdiction". "Original
jurisdiction" means that the Supreme Court hears the case directly, without the case
going through an intermediate stage. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive
jurisdiction to hear disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal
court can hear such a dispute. An example of such a case is the 1998 case of State of
New Jersey v. State of New York. In this case, the two states litigated the question of
which state had jurisdiction over Ellis Island. "Original jurisdiction" cases are rare,
with the Court hearing one or two cases each term.

The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is on appeal from a
circuit court. A party seeking to appeal a decision of a circuit court can file a petition
to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. "Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to
inform", in the sense that the petition informs the Court of the request for review.

Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases
it will hear. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so.
Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final
decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant
certiorari, the petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the lower
court is final.

7
The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme Court is through an appeal from
a state supreme court. Each state has its own supreme court that is the final authority
on state law. (However, each state does not always call its highest court the "Supreme
Court"; in New York, for example, the highest court is the Court of Appeals.) The
Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state
law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling
deals with Constitutional issues.

The Supreme Court hears most cases on appeal. Litigants wishing to appeal their cases
from a state supreme court or from a federal Court of Appeals must file for a "writ of
certiorari". If four of the nine Justices agree to issue a writ, the Court will hear the
case. The Court also has limited "original jurisdiction" in some cases.

 Federal Courts of Appeal

The Federal Courts of Appeal are the middle part of the pyramid. The Courts of
Appeal are divided into twelve different regions, often known as "circuits". These
courts are often known as "circuit courts". Eleven of the twelve circuit courts handle
cases from different states -- for example, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
Atlanta handles cases from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The twelfth circuit court is
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and is located in Washington.
Additionally, there is also a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,
which hears certain specialized cases.

Role of the Circuit Courts

The circuit courts are intermediate appellate courts. The circuit courts do not handle
jury trials. They only handle cases where a party argues that a district court judge
made an error in handling their case. For example, if a jury verdict goes against a
party, the party cannot directly appeal the verdict, because a jury verdict is final.
However, a party may base their appeal on a perceived error by the judge -- in other

8
words, the losing party may argue that the judge approved improper jury instructions,
or ruled that a vital piece of evidence was inadmissible. Circuit courts review the work
of district court judges -- applying one of several "standards of review" -- and issue
decisions based on whether or not the lower court's decision was right or not.

In order to decide the merits of an appeal, circuit court judges rely on documents
called "briefs". Each party to an appeal submits a brief to the court which outlines the
legal arguments at issue. The circuit court judges review the briefs. In some cases, the
judges will issue a decision based on their review of the briefs. In other cases, the
judges will schedule an "oral argument" session, where the attorneys for the parties
argue the cases before the judges, and give the judges the opportunity to ask questions
about their arguments.

Initially, every case at the circuit court level is handled by a panel of three judges.
(Occasionally, a retired judge on "senior status" or a district court judge will
participate on a panel.) Most decisions are issued by these panels. However, a party
may ask for a rehearing by a panel consisting of all the circuit court judges. This sort
of panel is known as an en banc panel.

 Federal District Courts

The Federal District Courts are the lowest part of the pyramid. There are 94 judicial
districts across the country, including judicial districts in the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam. Federal
district courts are the workhorses of the federal judiciary. Just about every civil or
criminal case heard in the federal courts starts at the district court level. District court
judges review petitions, hear motions, hold trials, issue injunctions, and keep the
wheels of justice spinning.

Role of the District Court

District courts are "trial" courts, meaning that district court judges have the authority
to try cases. The Supreme Court and the circuit courts are appellate courts, meaning

10
that they have the authority to hear appeals of decisions by trial court judges. District
court judges can conduct jury trials in criminal or civil proceedings. In some instances,
district court judges can decide cases without a jury -- a procedure known as a "bench
trial".The role of federal judges at the trial court level is to decide questions of law.
Almost every case filed in a federal court poses questions of law and questions of fact.
For example, in a criminal trial, there are generally issues regarding such questions as
the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence, the scope of a search warrant, or the
legality of an arrest. These are questions of law for a trial judge to decide. On the other
hand, there are also questions relating to whether the defendant actually committed the
crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These are questions of fact. In federal courts,
questions of fact are decided by a jury, or by the judge in a bench trial.

Navigating the Structure

Most cases start at the district court level. Once a district court judge issues a ruling, or
a jury issues a verdict, a case can proceed to the circuit court level, or even all the way
up to the Supreme Court. However, cases can move down the structure as well. If a
higher court overturns a decision of a lower court, the higher court will usually remand
the case to a lower court. A complex case may go back and forth among the different
levels one or more times.

The following flow chart describes how an individual case moves between the
different levels of the court system:

11
For example, a case would begin at the district court level. After the district court
issued its opinion, a party could appeal to the circuit court level. The appeal would
then be heard by a three-judge panel of the membership of the circuit court.

After the circuit court issued its decision on the appeal, the case could go in a number
of directions. The circuit court could remand the case back to the district court for
further consideration. One of the parties could request a rehearing of the case by the
circuit court as a whole -- what is referred to as an "en banc" panel of all the judges
appointed to that circuit court. One of the parties could also appeal directly to the
Supreme Court by requesting certiorari.

If four Supreme Court justices chose to issue a writ of certiorari, the Court would then
issue a decision on the case. The Court could then remand the case back to either the
district court or the circuit court, depending on its decision.

Jurisdiction of The Federal Courts

What is Jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is a term that refers to whether a court has the power to hear a given case.
Jurisdiction is important because it limits the power of a court to hear certain cases. If
courts did not exercise appropriate jurisdiction, every court could conceivably hear
every case brought to them, which would lead to confusing and contradictory results.

The concept of jurisdiction is a little easier to understand in state courts. Every state in
the United States has its own court system to hear cases arising from that state.
Suppose that a citizen of Mississippi sued a citizen of Alabama in a case involving a
real estate transaction that took place in Georgia. The case could be brought in state
court in Mississippi, or Alabama, because of where the parties live, or in Georgia,
because of where the property at issue is located. However, such a case could not be
brought in the state of Alaska, because none of the parties live there, and the state of
Alaska has no attachment to the case at all. The Alaska court would dismiss any

12
claims in this example because it would not have the appropriate jurisdiction.

A federal court, on the other hand, has more extensive jurisdiction than a state court.
While the jurisdiction of state courts are limited by their boundaries, the federal court
system covers the entire nation. For example, the Supreme Court can hear cases from
any state. Federal Courts of Appeal can hear cases from any of the states in their
region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of
Columbia). The federal courts also have jurisdiction on some cases where one party is
outside of the United States of America.

Another form of jurisdiction is what is known as "subject matter jurisdiction" whether

a given federal court can rule on the subject matter of the case in question. For
example, no federal court has "subject matter jurisdiction" to probate a will. The
probate process has, traditionally, always been left up to the individual state courts. In
contrast, cases involving patents are always in the "subject matter jurisdiction" of
federal courts. Because the Constitution gives Congress the specific power to regulate
the patent system, state courts do not have the appropriate jurisdiction to hear patent
cases. Federal courts also have "exclusive" subject matter jurisdiction over copyright
cases, admiralty cases, lawsuits involving the military, immigration laws, and
bankruptcy proceedings.

There are three main types of "subject matter jurisdiction" in the federal court system -
"federal question jurisdiction","diversity jurisdiction" and "supplemental jurisdiction".
This section of the module will discuss each of these in detail.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts are generally said to have "federal question" jurisdiction, which means
that federal courts will hear cases that involve issues touching on the Constitution or
other federal laws. The source of "federal question" jurisdiction can be found in the
Constitution. Article III states that the "judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law
and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under their Authority."

13
For example, a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over rent would normally not
be a "federal question", since relationships between landlords and tenants come under
state law, rather than federal law. However, the tenant could argue that she was being
discriminated against on the basis of race. A federal law, the Fair Housing Act,
protects the rights of tenants against racial discrimination. If the tenant claims that the
landlord is violating the Fair Housing Act in a discriminatory fashion, she could bring
her case in federal court because it raises a "federal question".

Diversity Jurisdiction

Federal law also authorizes federal courts to hear cases where the opposing parties are
citizens of different states. This is known as "diversity jurisdiction", because the
plaintiff and the defendant have different, or diverse, state citizenships. "Diversity
jurisdiction" enables a federal court to hear cases where there is not a federal question.
In diversity cases, the federal court provides a fair forum where citizens of different
states can have their cases heard.

The federal law governing diversity jurisdiction states that a case must have an
"amount-in-controversy" of $75,000 or more before a federal court can hear a case.
Additionally, there are exceptions to diversity jurisdiction for some cases, including
probate cases and family law cases, which are almost always handled in state courts.

For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete"

diversity between the parties. For example, if a citizen of Georgia filed a lawsuit in
federal court suing three defendants -- a citizen of Mississippi, a citizen of Alabama,
and a citizen in Georgia -- the federal court would not have jurisdiction. Because there
would be citizens of Georgia on both sides of the lawsuit, there would not be complete
diversity between the plaintiff and all of the defendants.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

In "supplemental jurisdiction", a federal court can hear a claim that would normally
come under the jurisdiction of a state court if it is related to a claim already before that

14
court. Supplementary jurisdiction -- sometimes called "ancillary jurisdiction" or
"pendent jurisdiction" -- is a common-law device that allows a court to resolve all
claims between opposing parties in one forum. Unlike other forms of jurisdiction,
supplementary jurisdiction is discretionary -- a court can choose whether or not to
exercise it in a given case.

For example, suppose that a tenant sued a landlord in federal court alleging she was
discriminated against in violation of the Fair Housing Act. As stated above, that
lawsuit would come under the "federal question" jurisdiction. But suppose that the
tenant also complained that the landlord damaged her car by negligently breaking a
window. This claim would not normally come under the jurisdiction of a federal court.
However, a federal court could opt to exercise its "supplemental jurisdiction" and hear
this claim along with the Fair Housing Act claim.

Checks and Balances

The federal court system is created in the U.S. Constitution. This segment will discuss
the Constitutional basis for the federal courts. It will also discuss how the federal
courts operate in the Constitutional system of "checks and balances" with the
executive and legislative branches of government.

Constitutional Issues

The federal courts are authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Article III
provides that:

 The judical power of the United States is vested in the federal court system.
 The highest court in the federal court system is the Supreme Court.
 Congress may create other "inferior" courts that are below the Supreme Court.
 Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges hold lifetime appointments,
unless removed from office.
 Congress may not decrease the pay of federal judges or Supreme Court justices
while they are in office.
 14

The Courts and the Executive Branch

The main check that the Executive Branch has on the federal courts is the power of
appointment. Article II of the Constitution provides that federal judges are appointed
by the President, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Presidents generally
appoint federal judges who share their political beliefs and philosophy. Because
federal judges are appointed for life, the power of appointment gives a President some
influence over the direction of the court system even after his term of office ends.

On at least one occasion, a President has sought to place a check on the federal courts
by widening his appointment authority. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt
proposed new legislation that would allow the President to appoint an additional
Justice to the Supreme Court when a Justice passed the age of seventy without retiring.
If passed, this legislation would have allowed the President to appoint six new Justices
to the Court. Roosevelt's proposal was widely derided as "court packing" and was
never implemented.

The main Constitutional check that the federal courts have on the executive branch is
through the process of impeachment, which provides for the removal of office for an
elected or appointed official. Article I of the Constitution provides that the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate when the President is
impeached. Chief Justice Salmon Chase presided over the impeachment of President
Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the
impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999.

The Supreme Court has also heard many landmark cases involving the Presidency. In
the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon, the Court found that Presidential claims of
privilege do not bar the release of information under a subpoena issued by a special
prosecutor in a criminal case. In the 1997 case of Clinton v. Jones, the Court found
that the President was not immune from a civil case brought against him in his private
capacity. In the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, the Court settled the disputed 2000
Presidential election by overturning a Florida Supreme Court decision calling for a
partial recount. 15

The Courts and the Legislative Branch

The main check that the federal courts have over the legislative branch is the
process of judicial review. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice
John Marshall authored an opinion ruling that a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789
was unconstitutional. The Marbury ruling was the first time that the Supreme Court
declared that a statute passed by Congress was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review in a variety of situations.
After the Marbury decision, the next time the Court found a law unconstitutional was
in the controversial Dred Scott decision, where the Court found that the Missouri
Compromise legislation was unconstitutional. The Court can also rule that a federal
law is constitutional. For example, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the
Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that
discrimination against African-American hotel guests affected interstate commerce.

Congress can also pass legislation that acts to overturn specific Supreme Court
decisions. For example, in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Department of
Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America that a federal civil rights law
protecting the rights of people with disabilities did not apply to the airline industry. In
response to this decision, Congress passed a new law, the Air Carrier Access Act. The
new law was designed to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in air
travel, thereby overturning the Court's decision.

State Courts and Jury Duty

Although federal courts are the most powerful courts in the United States and play an
essential role in shaping judicial policy and practice, state courts do much of the
“grunt” work that keeps our judicial system running. They’re also the courts that
Americans are most likely to have contact with in their lives.
 16

There are two types of trial courts in most states: special jurisdiction and general
jurisdiction.Special jurisdiction courts, which also can be called county, district,
justice, justice of the peace, magistrate or police courts, hear the following types of
cases:

 juvenile cases
 lesser civil and criminal cases
 traffic-related cases

General jurisdiction courts, which also can be called circuit courts, court of common
pleas, superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court, hear serious
civil and criminal cases. All states also have their own appellate courts and a state
supreme court. (The 62 trial courts in New York are called Supreme Courts, and the
state's highest court is the New York Court of Appeals.)Most states have two types of
trial courts: special jurisdiction and general jurisdiction. Special jurisdiction courts
hear many traffic violation cases, minor civil disputes, juvenile cases and lesser
criminal cases. They are sometimes called district, justice, county, justice of the peace,
magistrate or police courts. General jurisdiction courts hear serious criminal and civil
cases. General jurisdiction courts are also called circuit courts, court of common pleas,
superior courts or in the state of New York, the Supreme Court. All states also have
their own appellate courts and a state supreme court. (The 62 trial courts in New York
are called Supreme Courts, and the state's highest court is the New York Court of
Appeals.)

State courts have a variety of systems for how judges attain their positions -- some are
appointed by governors, others are elected and have to periodically face reelection.

Jury Duty

Jury duty: it’s been a bad Pauly Shore movie and a source of confusion for millions of
Americans. But jury duty is also an essential part of our judicial system. If citizens
didn’t give up some of their time to serve on juries, conducting fair trials would be
 17

almost impossible. Let’s look for a moment at how juries work.

As we learned earlier in the article, the U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals
do not use juries. But Federal District Courts, the trial courts of the federal judiciary,
do. State trial courts also depend on jurors, who are randomly selected from a pool of
registered voters and people with driver’s licenses to ensure a cross-section of the
population. Being selected in this way is known as being summoned. A summoned
juror must complete a questionnaire to determine if there is any reason that he or she
can be disqualified from serving.

There are two types of juries on which private citizens may be called to serve. A trial
jury, also known as a petit jury, is made up of six to 12 people for a civil trial and 12
people for a criminal trial. A grand jury, as discussed earlier in the article, is a panel of
16 to 23 people who determine whether there’s “probable cause” to charge someone
with a crime.

Other Federal Courts

The federal court system also includes several courts with specialized jurisdiction.
These courts handle cases in certain areas requiring specific legal expertise.

Federal courts fall into one of two broad classifications, depending on the source of
their authority. Article III of the Constitution, as explained in the Introduction,
provides that Congress shall create the Supreme Courts and inferior federal courts.
The federal courts discussed so far in this module are known as "Article III" courts.
However, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress broad power to create
"tribunals" inferior to the Supreme Court. The so-called "Article I" courts are not part
of the structure of the federal courts, but serve important roles in the federal
government. Unlike other federal judges, judges in "Article I" courts are not appointed
for life.

17
Other Article III Courts

The federal bankruptcy courts handle claims for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is the process
by which a debtor can establish a plan to resolve debts. A bankruptcy plan allows
some debts to be discharged, releasing debtors from personal responsibility for the
debts and stopping creditors from collecting on the debts. Because bankruptcy is
strictly a federal issue, it is handled exclusively by the federal bankruptcy courts, with
bankruptcy judges who are familiar with the law in this area.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a specialized circuit
court with national jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit hears appeals on most patent
issues. It also serves as an appellate court for many of the Article I courts, including
the Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the
Court of Federal Claims.

Article I Courts

The United States Tax Court handles cases involving the federal tax system. The Tax
Court hears cases where taxpayers dispute the amount of income tax paid, as well as
the tax collection process. Nineteen judges, appointed by the President, serve on the
Tax Court. The Tax Court is headquarted in Washington, D.C.

The United States Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over cases involving
the international trade laws. Nine judges sit on this court, which has a national
jurisdiction. The Court of International Trade is headquartered in New York City.

The United States Court of Federal Claims hears cases involving claims for money
damages against the Federal government. This court hears cases involving bids on
federal contracts, tax refunds, civil service and military pay disputes, copyright
infringement claims, and claims against Indian tribes. Sixteen judges serve on this
court, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has worldwide jurisdiction
over appeals of military court-martial cases under the Uniform Code of Military
Justice. 18
 CONCLUSION
The U.S. Courts were created under Article III of the Constitution to administer justice fairly

and impartially, within the jurisdiction established by the Constitution and Congress.The

work of the federal courts touches upon many of the most significant issues affecting the

American people, and federal judges exercise wide authority and discretion in the cases over

which they preside. The federal rules of practice and procedure govern litigation in the

federal courts. The process is clear how federal judgeships are created, how judges are

chosen, a summary of judicial vacancies, and provides basic information on judicial

compensation and the history of judges. It is important to discuss the Court as an institution.

The court established and preserved its internal measures and rules and identified and

distinguished its responsibilities from that of other political branches through

institutionalization. Therefore there is no doubt that the Court acts as an institution however,

the objective is to determine whether it is a political institution and to what extent. The U.S.

Courts are an independent national judiciary providing fair and impartial justice within the

jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution and Congress. As an equal branch of government,

the federal Judiciary preserves and enhances its core values as the courts meet changing

national and local needs.

19
 Bibliography

Books
 The American Judiciary, by Simeon E Baldwin
 American Courts by Daniel John Meador

REFERENCES
 www.uscourts.gov
 www.abanet.org
 www.secure.law.cornell.edu/topics/jurisdiction.html
 www.law.cornell.edu/federal/districts.html
 www.ca2.uscourts.gov
 www.supremecourtus.gov/
 www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/
 www.ustaxcourt.gov/
20