Return to Previous Page

Federal Courts

What is the federal court system
What is its structure
How do cases move through the structure

The federal court system is the legal system that provides the venues for determining guilt or innocence when charges are brought under federal criminal law, and for settling disputes under federal civil law, not states’ criminal and civil laws.  Its structure can be thought of as a pyramid, with district (trial) courts at the base, appellate courts in the middle and the Supreme Court at the top.  Cases normally begin in the district courts and can move to the appellate levels by way of the right of appeal, requesting a writ of certiorari (see below) from the Supreme Court, or a motion for certification from the Supreme Court (also see below), though the latter is rarely used.

Currently, there are 94 district court judges.  Each state has at least one federal district judgeship.  The district courts are clustered into eleven geographical regions plus one for the District of Columbia (the “D.C. Circuit”) and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  There are 179 appellate court judges.  The Supreme Court has nine justices.1

There are also 90 federal Bankruptcy Courts that fall under the district courts; their jurisdiction is solely hearing bankruptcies.  Appeals from these courts go to Appeals Panels in the five appellate circuits that have them, viz. the 1^st, 6^th, 8^th, 9^th and 10^th.  In the remaining eight circuits, the appeals are heard by the Appellate Court of the circuit in which the bankruptcy court sits. 

Finally, there are also Article I courts, so called because Congress established them using its legislative authority to address a need rather than because the Constitution mandates a court.  There are currently three such courts: the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (formerly known as the Court of Military Appeals), and the US Tax Court. 

Article III, section 1 states that there shall be a Supreme Court and any other courts that Congress deems necessary to establish.  (Note that the Constitution does not stipulate the number of justices or other judges or the types of courts.  It is also critical to remember that Congress has the sole authority to create and remove courts.) During its meeting, the first Congress passed the Judiciary Act 1789, which set the number of Justices at six (one Chief Justice and five associate justices),2 as well as establishing thirteen district courts organized into three geographic circuits: eastern, middle and southern.  The circuits were established to hear appeals from the district courts.  Supreme Court justices “rode circuit,” that is, they literally rode to the regions to which they were assigned to hear appeals from the district courts in that region.  There were no distinct, dedicated judgeships created to hear only appellate cases. 

As the Supreme Court’s appellate workload grew, chief justices complained to Congress for help,3 and in 1891, Congress acted by establishing the first four appellate circuit courts.  With the nation’s expansion westward and its rapid industrialization, the court system’s capacity to handle it caseload necessitated the addition of more district and appellate circuits. 

Graphic from https://www.uscourts.gov

Nearly all federal cases begin at the district court level.4  Following a district court decision, the losing party in a civil case may have the right to appeal to the Circuit Court in which the district court is located.  The right to appeal is laid out in the federal laws under which the civil case was brought to the court.  Similarly with criminal cases, the defendant usually has a right to appeal if the defendant loses at the trial court.  Should the defendant win, the government does not have a right to appeal the verdict.5 
  Depending on the type of case, the losing party at the appellate level may have a right to appeal to the Supreme Court.  For example, in federal criminal cases where the death sentence has been imposed, the defendant has an automatic right to appeal. 
  If the losing party does not have a right to appeal, the lawyer for the losing party may seek a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court.  The writ asks the Court to take the case because the issue(s) involved in the case are so important that they go beyond the case itself and have significant implications for many other people across the country.6  The Justices meet to review requests for writs; it takes the votes of four justices to issue the writ. 
  The last means of having a case move to the Supreme Court is certification.  Here, the appellate courts’ judges feel that they cannot reach a decision in a case because they are uncertain about how the Constitution should be interpreted to apply to the issue in the case before them.  The judges can ask the Supreme Court to “certify” a constitutional interpretation for them.  The Supreme Court has three options: refuse the request, leaving the appellate court to interpret the Constitution as it wishes; accept the request and issue an interpretation which is binding on the appellate court; or remove the case from the appellate court, thereby bypassing that court, and issue a ruling on the case. 

Cases may also be appealed from Article I courts and from the highest state courts by certiorari and, in certain matters, by right of appeal: for example, when the death penalty is involved in a criminal case. 

1. All federal judges and justice positions are filled when the president sends his nominees to the Senate, where a majority of the Senate must vote to confirm.  A Senate tradition, senatorial courtesy, recommends that presidents ask the senators from the states where vacancies exist to send recommendations to the president.  Presidents are expected to then nominate one of the recommended candidates.  Failure to do could result in the president’s nominee being rejected by the Senate.  By rejecting the president’s nominee, Senators send a message to the President that ignoring senatorial courtesy comes with a price.  This ensures that when future vacancies appear in their states, they will have the opportunity to recommend candidates.  The tradition began as a form of patronage in which Senators rewarded loyal party members with an appointment to the federal bench.  ⇧
2. The number of Supreme Court justices fluctuated over time until the Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number at nine.  A quick history: in 1801, the number was reduced to five; 1807, increased to seven; 1837, increased to nine; 1863, increased to ten; 1866, reduced to seven.  Initially, Congress felt that it needed to increase the number of Justice to reflect the increase in the number of states joining the Union.  In the years leading to the Civil War, however, politics came into play as the Court’s role in determining the legality of laws regulating slavery became apparent.   ⇧
3. Among the Chief Justice’s many responsibilities is serving as the chief administrator of the federal court system.  He provides an annual report to Congress on the number of cases heard by the court system, recommends adding or removing courts and reflects on the court system’s overall health.   ⇧
4. There is a court level below the district courts: federal magistrate judges, or magistrate judges.  They were first created in 1793 but not officially established until 1968 with the Federal Magistrates Act.  The magistrate judges assist federal district courts by helping with routine tasks.  They are appointed by the federal district court judges, and do not require Senate confirmation.  They serve renewable eight-year terms if full time, and four years if part-time.  Among their responsibilities are to issue warrants, hold arraignments and pre-trial motions for criminal cases, and actually hold trials and issue rulings in civil cases provided that both parties agree in advance.   ⇧
5. A word of explanation about what an appeal is.  When a case is appealed to another level, the case is not retried by the appellate court.  Instead, the party making the appeal identifies an error that occurred during the trial, usually by the judge, that significantly affected the verdict in the case.  On appeal, the lawyer for the appellant explains to the appellate court how and why the error should be corrected based on past cases, known as precedent cases.  Should the appellate court agree with the appellant’s lawyer, the case is usually remanded (sent back) to the trial court for a new trial that does not include the error made by the judge.  If the appellate court finds against the appellant, then the trial court’s decision stands.  ⇧
6. For example, in the landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright (1963 ), Gideon, who had been convicted in a Florida court of a felony, had exhausted his appeals in the Florida court system.  Acting as his own attorney, he filed a writ with the Supreme Court, explaining that he was denied counsel by Florida, leading to his conviction.  He argued that the 6^th Amendment guaranteed him a right to counsel, and that this right should extend to every person charged with a felony in state courts, because the 14^th Amendment extended protections contained in the Bill of Rights to the states.  The Court issued the writ, assigned Gideon a lawyer to argue his case before the Court (Abe Fortas, who would later become a Justice), and the Court found for Gideon.  The case was remanded to the Florida trial court, where Gideon had counsel and was found innocent of the felony charge.   ⇧

Return to Previous Page