UNITED STATES COURTS - The Law Mind Legal Dictionary

UNITED STATES COURTSAuthored

The Law Mind • 1670 words

Definition

The United States Courts are the federal courts established under the Constitution and Acts of Congress to exercise the judicial power of the United States. The system divides into two broad categories:

1. Constitutional courts (Article III courts): Courts established pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, whose judges hold office during good behavior and whose compensation may not be diminished during their tenure. These include the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals, the United States District Courts, and the Court of International Trade. Because Article III courts exercise the judicial power of the federal government in its fullest constitutional sense, they may hear only genuine cases and controversies — they cannot issue advisory opinions, and their subject matter jurisdiction is defined and limited by both the Constitution and congressional statute.

2. Legislative courts (Article I courts): Courts created by Congress under its Article I powers for specialized purposes. These include the United States Bankruptcy Courts, the United States Tax Court, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the military courts established under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Judges on these courts do not necessarily hold Article III tenure protections. Their jurisdiction is more narrowly defined and tied to the congressional power that created them.

The Supreme Court stands at the apex of both systems on questions of federal and constitutional law. Congress has broad power to establish, define, and modify the jurisdiction of inferior federal courts — but it cannot expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond what Article III specifies.

---

Common Confusion

"United States Courts" is sometimes used loosely to mean any American court — state or federal. This is incorrect. State courts are courts of the several states, operating under state constitutions and statutes. They are not United States Courts. State courts may, and routinely do, hear matters involving federal law, but they are not part of the federal judicial system. The distinction is critical in research: a state supreme court decision on a federal constitutional question is subject to review by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the intervening state appellate courts are not federal courts.

A secondary confusion involves the terms "constitutional court" and "legislative court." Both are United States Courts in the broad sense of being federal tribunals, but their judges' tenure protections, the constitutional basis for their existence, and their jurisdictional scope differ substantially.

---

Core Elements

The constitutional framework for United States Courts rests on several pillars:

Establishment authority: The Constitution vests judicial power in "one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Congress's power to create inferior courts carries with it the power to define — and within constitutional limits, to restrict — their jurisdiction.

Judicial independence guarantees (Article III): Judges of constitutional courts hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that Congress may not diminish. These protections are structural, designed to insulate the judiciary from political pressure in individual cases.

Subject matter jurisdiction: Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. The principal heads of federal subject matter jurisdiction include federal question jurisdiction (arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States), diversity jurisdiction (disputes between citizens of different states meeting the amount-in-controversy threshold), admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, cases affecting ambassadors and other public ministers, and controversies to which the United States is a party.

Divided opinion rule (historical): Under the former structure of circuit courts, when judges were equally divided on a question of law, the matter could be certified to the Supreme Court for resolution. Bouvier records this procedure under the Revised Statutes. The circuit courts as trial-level tribunals were abolished in 1911; this procedural mechanism is a period artifact relevant only to pre-1911 research.

---

Recognized Forms

/SUBTYPES

Supreme Court of the United States: Court of last resort; original jurisdiction over cases involving states as parties and cases affecting ambassadors; appellate jurisdiction over federal and state courts on federal questions.

United States Courts of Appeals: Intermediate appellate courts organized into thirteen circuits, including eleven numbered circuits, the D.C. Circuit, and the Federal Circuit (which has nationwide jurisdiction over specialized subject matter including patent appeals and claims against the federal government).

United States District Courts: The principal trial courts of the federal system. At least one district exists in every state. Most federal litigation begins here.

United States Bankruptcy Courts: Units of the district courts, operating under Article I authority, handling bankruptcy proceedings under Title 11.

United States Tax Court: An Article I court hearing disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service prior to payment of contested tax.

United States Court of Federal Claims: Hears monetary claims against the United States government.

Military Courts: The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces and the service courts of criminal appeals, operating under congressional authority over the armed forces.

---

Why It Matters in Research

Structure has changed substantially. Researchers working in pre-1891 materials will encounter a circuit court system that no longer exists. Before the Evarts Act of 1891, there were no intermediate appellate courts in the modern sense; Supreme Court justices "rode circuit" and sat with district judges in the circuit courts. The creation of the Courts of Appeals in 1891 and the abolition of the old circuit courts in 1911 reshaped federal judicial architecture entirely. A "circuit court" in an 1870 source means something different from a "circuit court of appeals" in a 1920 source.

Divided-opinion procedure is a research trap. Bouvier references the mechanism by which an equally divided circuit court could certify a question upward. This procedure was significant in the nineteenth century because it shaped the appellate record in ways that affect how older cases read. Understanding that a case reached the Supreme Court on a certificate of division — rather than a writ of error on the merits — affects how one reads the holding.

Jurisdictional history matters for case law. Federal question jurisdiction as a general statutory grant did not exist until 1875. Before that, federal courts reached many cases only through diversity or specific statutory grants. Cases from the pre-1875 era that turn on federal law often arrived in federal court by jurisdictional routes that no longer exist or operate differently today.

State-federal boundary in the corpus: Many Law Mind sources discuss both state and federal courts without always distinguishing clearly. When a historical source refers to "the courts" in a federal context, verify whether it means Article III courts, the old circuit courts, or the Supreme Court specifically. Bouvier's entries on United States Courts are primarily descriptive of the late nineteenth-century structure and should be read in that light.

Sovereign immunity intersects here. Suits against the United States in federal court require a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. This affects which courts have jurisdiction over what claims — particularly relevant when researching the Court of Federal Claims and its predecessors.

---

Historical Dictionary Support

Bouvier's Law Dictionary describes the constitutional framework accurately for its period: judicial power vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress establishes; judges appointed by the President with Senate advice and consent; tenure during good behavior; compensation protection. These descriptions track Article III directly and remain accurate as constitutional description.

Where Bouvier's is most useful — and most historically specific — is in its account of the old circuit court structure. The divided-opinion rule Bouvier cites (Revised Statutes § 650) reflects a procedural mechanism that shaped how contested legal questions reached the Supreme Court in the nineteenth century. Researchers consulting pre-1911 case law should understand this pathway.

Bouvier's description of original jurisdiction in cases where a state is a party aligns with Article III and with the constitutional requirement that the state appear as a party on the record (citing Wheat. and Dall. reporters) to invoke the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. The nuance that a state must be a "direct" party — not merely substantially interested — is a point of continuing constitutional significance.

What Bouvier's necessarily misses: the modern Courts of Appeals (created 1891, after earlier Bouvier editions), the abolition of the circuit courts (1911), the creation of the Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, and the reorganization of the bankruptcy system under the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978. Any Bouvier entry on United States Courts describes a system that was substantially restructured in the century following its publication.

---

Jurisdictional Note

Federal court jurisdiction varies significantly by subject matter and statutory grant. Not all federal courts have jurisdiction over all federal questions — the Court of Federal Claims, the Tax Court, and the Federal Circuit have specialized and exclusive jurisdiction over defined categories of claims. State courts retain concurrent jurisdiction over many federal claims unless Congress has vested exclusive jurisdiction in the federal courts (as with bankruptcy, patent, and federal criminal prosecutions).

---

Encyclopedia Cross-Reference

The Law Mind Constitutional Law Encyclopedia — Birthright Citizenship — The Fourteenth Amendment and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (illustrating Supreme Court jurisdiction and constitutional adjudication)
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia — Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 USC 371) (illustrating federal subject matter jurisdiction in criminal cases)
The Law Mind Environmental & Energy Law Encyclopedia — Navigable Waters, Waters of the United States, and Jurisdiction (illustrating how federal court jurisdiction intersects with statutory and constitutional definitions)

---

UNITED STATES COURTSmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

On the trial of an action at law, when the judges of the circuit court of the United States are opposed in opinion on a material question of law, the opinion of the presiding judge prevails; U. S. Rev. Stat. § 650; but in any such case the judgment rendered conformably there- to might, without regard to its amount, be reviewed on a writ of error, upon a certifi- cate stating such question; 100 U. S. 158. The power of the supreme court to review a case on a division of opinion in a circuit court, under U. S. Rev. Stat. §§ 651 and 697, is taken away by the act of March 3, 1891, creating the circuit courts of appeals, which impliedly repeals said sections; 163 U. S. 132; U. S. v. Hewecker, Oct. 26, 1896. See 151 U. S. 577.

UNITED STATES COURTSmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

Ex- cept in the case of impeachments the judi- cial power of the United States is vested by the constitution in a supreme court and such other inferior courts as may be from time to time established by congress. All the judges are appointed by the president, with the advice of the senate, to hold office during good behavior, and their compen- sation cannot be diminished during their terms of office. The judges, other than those of the supreme court, are circuit judges and district judges, by whom are held the inferior courts of law and etuity. For a detailed description of the various courts and their rules of practice, jurisdiction, etc., it is suggested that reference be made to some recent book on the subject such as Dewhurst's Rules of Practice in the United States Courts, Montgomery's Federal Pro- cedure, or Foster's Federal Practice. Ed. Note.] The judicial power under the constitu- tion shall extend to:-1. Cases arising un- der the federal constitution, laws, or treaties. 2. Those affecting ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls. 8. Admiralty and maritime cases. 4. Con- troversies to which the United States is a party. 5. Those between two or more states. 6. Or between a state and a citizen of another state. (By the 11th amendment this grant of power was so limited as not to permit a state to be sued by citizens of another state, but a state may sue citizens of another state; 10 Wall. 553; 91 U. S. 667.) 7. Or between citizens of different states. 8. Or between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. This is construed to be an absolute grant of power; 1 Wheat. 308. The nature of the federal government which distributes the functions of govern- ment between two powers, each being sovereign within its sphere, but operating within the same territorial jurisdiction and upon the same persons and property, makes necessary the adjustment of two classes of independent tribunals with great care, both in legislation and the administration of justice, to avoid conflicts of jurisdiction. That such have occurred is true, but their rare occurrence in more than a century bears testimony as well to the tact and discretion of the judiciary, federal and state, as to the perfection of the system which they administer under the constitu- tion. As respects criminal proceedings, the courts of each jurisdiction generally con- fine themselves to the administration of the laws of the government which created them. In civil cases, however, as the con- stitution has conferred jurisdiction upon the federal courts in cases, for example, where a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state, it is manifest that the court which tries such a case must ad- minister the laws of the state in which the action is brought, subject to the constitu- tion of the United States in cases which conflict with its provisions. In the organization of the federal system of courts, there were two objects to be ac- complished. The first was to prevent a clashing between the state and United States courts, by imposing restrictions upon the United States courts. The second was to carry out the mandates of the constitu- tion, by clothing the latter with all the powers necessary to execute its provisions. This organization was commenced by the act of 1789, familiarly known as the Judi- ciary Act; 1 Stat. at Large 921. To accomplish the first object, the right to issue writs of habeas corpus was by the fourteenth section limited to cases arising under the federal constitution and laws; R. S. § 758. See HABRAS CORPUS. This important restriction was intended to leave to the state authorities the ab- solute and exclusive administration of the state laws in all cases of imprisonment; and no instance hasever occurred in which this act has been disregarded. On the con- trary, its observance has been emphatic- ally enjoined and enforced; 21 How. 523. See 4 Dill. 833; 24 Am. L. Reg. 533. See infra. By the thirty-fourth section of the same act (R. S. § 721), it was enacted that the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States should otherwise require or provide, were to be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law, in the courts of the United States, in cases where they applied. This provision has received examination and interpretation in the fol- lowing, among the many cases 7 How. 40; 8 id. 169; 14 id. 504; 17 id. 476; 18 id. 502, 507; 20 id. 393, 584; 18 Wall. 71: 17 id. 44; 98 U. S. 176, 242, 470; 3 Wash. C. C. 818; 17 Fed. Rep. 721. In'all cases de- pending upon the construction of a state statute, federal courts will follow the con- struction of the court of last resort of the state, when that construction is well settled, without respect to its original soundness: 9 Cra. 87; 100 U. S. 47; 60 Fed. Rep. 718; 22 id. 26; even when, in ignorance of a decision by the state court, the supreme court had construed the stat- ute differently; 100 U. S. 47

UNITED STATES COURTSmain

Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928

solidation authorized by act of congress; 111.U. S. 449; to enjoin the erection of a bridge across a navigable river authorized by act of congress; 18 Blatch. 479; whether full faith and credit were given to a judg- ment in another state; 146 U. S. 157; where the supreme court of a state failed to give proper effect to a decree of the circuit court of the United States; 152 id. 327; where a federal officer is sued in trespass to real estate which he claims to have possession for and under authority of the United States; 147 id. 508. So, of course, are suits for infringement of patents and copyrights, cases in which it is claimed that a state law is invalid because in con- flict with the constitution or laws of the United States, or as depriving one of some right, privilege, or immunity thereby guar- anteed, and criminal prosecutions for vio- lations of federal laws. The judicial power of the federal govern- ment is administered under existing laws, by four courts. The supreme court, which is created by the constitution, from which it derives its original jurisdiction ; the circuit court of appeals; the circuit court; and the district court. There are also various administrative tribunals, such as the court of claims; see infra; the interstate commerce com- mission; and the private land claims court; which titles see. There are also separate judicial systems provided by congress for the territories and the Dis- trict of Columbia. The system of appeals, as at present organized, provides for the review of decisions on questions of law in most, if not all, of the federal tri- bunals either by the supreme court or the circuit court of appeals, as the case may be. As to the Senate as a court of impeach- ment, see IMPEACHMENT. The Supreme Court now consists of the chief justice and eight associates, of whom six constitute a quorum. They have precedence according to date of ap- pointment, or, of two appointed at the same time, then according to their ages. In the absence of the chief justice, the associate first in precedence performs his duties. There is a single term which begins on the second Monday of October. In the absence of a quorum, any of the judges may adjourn from day to day for twenty days, but if at the expiration of that period no quorum attends, the business shall be set aside until the next appointed session. The clerk, marshal, and reporter are ap- pointed by the court. The jurisdiction is original and appellate, civil and criminal, defined by the constitu- tion, which establishes the court; 11 Wheat. 467. By the act of September 24, 1789, sect. 13, the supreme court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, or between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens, in which latter cases it shall have original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction. It shall have exclusively all such juris- diction of suits or proceedings against am- bassadors or other public ministers, or their domestics or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits brought by am- bassadors or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul is a party; R. S. § 687. The court has no jurisdiction except that given it by the constitution or law; 4 Cra. 93. Many cases have occurred of controver- sies between states, amongst which may be mentioned that of Rhode Island v. Massa- chusetts, 4 How. 591, in which the attor- ney-general of the United States was authorized by act of congress, 11 Stat. at Large 382, to intervene; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660, and 10 How. 1; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Bel- mont Bridge Company, 18 How. 421. See 136 U. S. 479; s. c. 163 id. 520; 147 id. 1; 148 id. 503; 165 id. 118; 12 Pet.. 167. In a

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

Subscribe Encyclopedia Sign In