Federal Courts: Constitutional Powers Explained

The U.S. Constitution grants federal courts the power to exercise judicial authority in specific cases and outlines the structure of the federal judiciary, including the establishment of inferior courts and a Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution defines the scope of judicial power, encompassing cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties. It also covers cases involving ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, as well as admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The Constitution further empowers Congress to establish inferior federal courts, such as the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, and to determine their jurisdiction. The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors and those in which a state is a party, while Congress retains the power to declare the punishment for treason.

Explore related products

Federal Court Basics: The Structure and Function of Federal and State Courts

$11.95

Examples & Explanations for Federal Courts

$53 $76.95

The Power of Our Supreme Court: How Supreme Court Cases Shape Democracy

$15.99 $22.99

Litigating in Federal Court: A Guide to the Rules

$28 $28

Hart and Wechsler's The Federal Courts and the Federal System (University Casebook Series)

$305

Federal Courts in Context [Connected eBook](Aspen Casebook)

$272.2 $344

Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the US

The US Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. This includes all cases in law and equity that arise under the Constitution, laws of the US, and treaties made under their authority.

The Constitution outlines the powers of both the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts, with the former taking original jurisdiction in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, as well as those in which a state is a party. The inferior federal courts were created by Congress and are granted jurisdiction in specific cases, such as those involving the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the US. However, their jurisdiction is generally more restrictive than that of the Supreme Court, and they may not have the full jurisdiction allowed by the Constitution.

The Federal Judiciary Act of 1789 established the first federal court system, with the understanding that the judicial power of the US is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts. This act divided the country into three circuits: the eastern, middle, and southern circuits, each with its own circuit courts. The Supreme Court's original jurisdiction in certain cases and its appellate jurisdiction in others are also recognised in the act.

The judicial power of federal courts allows them to decide cases and render judgments that conclusively resolve matters. This power is not absolute, however, as litigants must establish that jurisdiction exists for a court to proceed.

Congress can expand or restrict federal court jurisdiction

The Constitution grants Congress the power to expand or restrict federal court jurisdiction. This is achieved through the use of two powers: the power to create federal courts inferior to the Supreme Court and the power to make exceptions to and regulations of the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction.

The Judiciary Act of 1789, one of the first acts of the new Congress, established a federal court system. However, the jurisdiction of these courts was more restrictive than what was permitted by the Constitution. This was a conscious decision by Congress, recognising that a full-blown federal court system would not be well-received by the people of the United States at the time.

Congress has demonstrated its ability to restrict federal court jurisdiction in several ways. One example is by setting a minimum amount in controversy, barring lower federal courts from hearing diversity cases involving less than that amount. Congress has also restricted jurisdiction through the Norris-La Guardia Act, which forbade the issuance of injunctions in labour disputes except through a lengthy hearing and fact-finding process.

Congress's power to expand federal court jurisdiction is also evident. For instance, the creation of a separate tier of appellate circuit courts in 1891 relieved the Supreme Court justices of the burden of circuit riding. This expansion of jurisdiction was within Congress's power, as stated by Justice Chase:

> "The disposal of the judicial power (except in a few specified instances) belongs to Congress. If Congress has given the power to this Court, we possess it, not otherwise: and if Congress has not given the power to us, or to any other Court, it still remains at the legislative disposal."

However, it is important to note that there are differing opinions on the extent of Congress's power to restrict federal court jurisdiction. Some, like Professor Akhil Amar, argue that Congress cannot concurrently remove the jurisdiction of inferior courts and the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over certain claims as it would violate the Constitution's mandatory grant of jurisdiction.

Federal courts decide cases and render judgments

The US Constitution grants federal courts the power to decide cases and render judgments. This power is known as "judicial power" and is vested in both the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts created by Congress.

The Constitution outlines the types of cases that fall under federal jurisdiction. These include cases arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority. It also includes cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, as well as admiralty and maritime cases. Additionally, federal courts have jurisdiction over controversies where the United States is a party, controversies between two or more states, between citizens of different states, and certain land disputes.

The federal court system was established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, which divided the country into circuits and created district courts and circuit courts. The act also restricted the jurisdiction of the federal courts, as the founders recognised that a full-blown federal court system might not be palatable to the people at the time.

While the Constitution grants federal courts the power to decide cases, it is important to note that their jurisdiction is not absolute. For a federal court to exercise judicial power, it must have jurisdiction over the specific case, which is determined by both the Constitution and acts of Congress. This means that litigants must establish that the court has jurisdiction before proceeding with a case.

The Supreme Court holds original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, as well as those in which a state is a party. In all other cases mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction, meaning it can review decisions made by inferior federal courts.

Explore related products

The State and Federal Courts: A Complete Guide to History, Powers, and Controversy

$83.31 $115.2

Federal Courts: Cases and Materials [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebooks)

$244.98 $359

Federal Courts: Cases and Materials (Aspen Casebook)

$92.25 $335

Federal Courts: Context, Cases, and Problems [Connected eBook] (Aspen Casebook)

$118.83 $345

Brandeis and the Progressive Constitution: Erie, the Judicial Power, and the Politics of the Federal Courts in Twentieth-Century America

$82

Federal Courts Stories (Law Stories)

$54 $72

Federal judges hold office during good behaviour

The U.S. Constitution states that federal judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour". This clause, also known as the Good Behaviour Clause, means that federal judges are appointed for life and cannot be removed from office based on the whims of the executive or legislative branch. The exact meaning of "good behaviour" has been the subject of long-standing debate, with some arguing that it denotes an alternative standard of removal for federal judges beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors" that would normally lead to the impeachment of federal officers. Others have rejected this notion, interpreting "good behaviour" more generally as "so long as they conduct themselves well".

The Good Behaviour Clause is intended to protect federal judges from removal based on disagreements with the interpretation of the law or political disagreements. For example, in 1804, an attempt was made to remove Supreme Court Chief Justice Samuel Chase, who was viewed by Jeffersonian Republicans as openly partisan and biased against their party. The allegations against Chief Justice Chase included that he acted in an "arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust manner" at trial, misapplied the law, and expressed partisan political views to a grand jury. The attempt failed, and Congress has never removed a federal judge for disagreement with the law's application or because of political differences.

While the Good Behaviour Clause does not establish a standard for impeachment and removal, the range of conduct meriting removal for federal judges may differ from that of executive branch officials due to the distinct nature of each office. The Senate has never voted to remove the President or an executive branch official, but has removed eight federal judges. The conduct leading to impeachment and removal for federal judges has included intoxication on the bench, abandoning office to join the Confederacy, and various types of corruption, such as perjury and income tax evasion.

It is important to note that criminal behaviour is not considered part of a government official's duties, and federal judges are not insulated from criminal prosecution. Congress retains the exclusive power to remove a federal judge through impeachment, and a criminal conviction does not automatically result in removal from office.

Federal courts try cases of treason against the US

The Constitution grants federal courts the power to try cases of treason against the United States. Treason is the only crime explicitly mentioned in the US Constitution, which defines it as "levying War" against the US or "giving [its enemies] aid and comfort".

Federal courts have jurisdiction over treason cases, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases affecting ambassadors, ministers, consuls, and those in which a state is a party. The judicial power of federal courts extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority. This includes cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, as well as admiralty and maritime cases. Federal courts also have jurisdiction over controversies where the United States is a party, between two or more states, between citizens of different states, and between citizens of the same state claiming lands under different grants.

In treason cases, the accused cannot be convicted unless there is testimony from at least two witnesses or a confession in open court. The Congress has the power to declare the punishment for treason, but no conviction of treason can result in corruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the life of the convicted person.

While treason against the US is rare, there have been several notable cases throughout history. For example, in 1947, the Supreme Court upheld a treason conviction for the first time. In another case, Hans was charged with 29 overt acts of providing aid and comfort to the enemy during World War II. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to life in prison and a fine. Tomoya Kawakita, a Japanese-American, was also sentenced to death for working as an interpreter in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp during the war.

It is important to note that most people who commit treasonous acts are not tried for treason but are instead charged with related crimes such as espionage, conspiracy to commit sedition, terrorism, or conspiracy to levy war.

Frequently asked questions