{ "id": "R43746", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43746", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 441862, "date": "2015-06-01", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:59:42.297019", "title": "Congressional Power to Create Federal Courts: A Legal Overview", "summary": "The U.S. Constitution established only one federal court\u2014the U.S. Supreme Court. Beyond this, Article III of the Constitution left it to the discretion of Congress to \u201cordain and establish\u201d lower federal courts to conduct the judicial business of the federal government. From the very first, Congress established a host of different federal tribunals to adjudicate a variety of legal disputes. The two central types of federal \u201ccourts\u201d\u2014courts established under Article III and those tribunals that are not\u2014differ in many respects, including with regard to their personnel, purposes, and powers.\nCourts established pursuant to Article III are mainly defined by the three central constitutional provisions to which they are subject: resolution of cases that only present live \u201ccases or controversies,\u201d lifetime tenure, and salary protection. The primary purpose for these safeguards was to insulate the federal judiciary from potential pressures, from either the political branches or the public, which might improperly influence the judicial decision-making process. \nNotwithstanding Article III\u2019s seemingly literal command that the \u201cjudicial power\u201d shall extend to all cases \u201carising under\u201d the Constitution or federal law, Congress has assigned a host of cases arising under federal law to non-Article III bodies. Unlike Article III judges, these bodies, generally referred to as \u201cnon-Article III courts,\u201d \u201clegislative courts,\u201d or \u201cArticle I courts,\u201d enjoy neither lifetime tenure nor salary protection. There are two main categories of non-Article III courts. The first are standalone courts, created under Congress\u2019s Article I power, which have similar authority as Article III courts, such as entering their own judgments and issuing contempt orders. Examples of legislative courts include the U.S. Tax Court; the Court of Federal Claims; the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces; and federal district courts in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The second category of non-Article III tribunals is commonly referred to as \u201cadjuncts\u201d to Article III courts. This category is mainly comprised of federal administrative agencies and magistrate judges.\nThese non-Article III bodies have been justified on several grounds. First, the Court has held that in certain limited instances, Article III\u2019s absolute command must give way to Congress\u2019s exercise of its Article I powers. This theory has been used to justify the creation of territorial courts, military courts, and the adjudication of cases involving rights created by Congress (commonly referred to as \u201cpublic rights\u201d cases). The second rationale is the use of \u201cadjuncts,\u201d judicial officers who do not function as independent courts but instead act as a subordinate to the federal courts with direct review of their decisions. Examples of adjuncts include the thousands of administrative law judges who adjudicate cases coming before federal agencies and federal magistrate judges who assist district court judges with everything from deciding motions, hearing evidence, and trying both criminal and civil cases. Lastly, certain questions arising under federal law may be resolved by non-Article III tribunals if the parties to the proceeding consent to such an adjudication.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43746", "sha1": "a5e24df8a206409b6f0a6efc337fc80c5650b6d6", "filename": "files/20150601_R43746_a5e24df8a206409b6f0a6efc337fc80c5650b6d6.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43746", "sha1": "daacc52699d7c45a039660c0854d79bfcd841c29", "filename": "files/20150601_R43746_daacc52699d7c45a039660c0854d79bfcd841c29.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc463358/", "id": "R43746_2014Oct01", "date": "2014-10-01", "retrieved": "2014-12-05T09:57:41", "title": "Congressional Power to Create Federal Courts: A Legal Overview", "summary": "This report provides an overview of this often difficult and misunderstood area of law, beginning with a discussion of the various types of federal tribunals. The report continues by noting the rationales for why Congress established the breadth of different courts that exist today and concludes with a discussion of the various factors and relevant issues that limit Congress's discretion in establishing federal courts.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20141001_R43746_f017dd82569c476b80173930cc71631975c23bcd.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20141001_R43746_f017dd82569c476b80173930cc71631975c23bcd.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Courts", "name": "Courts" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Law", "name": "Law" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Administration of justice", "name": "Administration of justice" } ] } ], "topics": [ "American Law", "Constitutional Questions", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }