Federal Courts and the Constitution
Dennis AuBuchon
June 01, 2009
This article is about connecting the Federal Courts and their responsibilities as identified in the Constitution. Some of the discussions may be familiar to readers but others may surprise you. When researching this article I learned much about the Federal court system and the various requirements of the different courts and judges along with their responsibilities.
To begin with there are many federal courts and judges who make decisions involving Federal law or the Constitution. I have great respect for the position of a federal judge or any judge. With regards to federal judges at all levels many times they are involved with controversial issues and the decisions they make can have a far reaching impact. Those who hold the position of a federal judge do so for life except where other terms are identified. This is something while not always popular is necessary. Federal judges must have the power to not worry if they are going to please those in charge above them and they must be free from political pressure. The information presented in this article is taken from www.uscourts.gov. The discussion presented is based upon the requirements identified within this site.
Before a discussion can begin on federal judges and the Constitution the responsibilities must be identified. Per the web site www.uscourts.gov the responsibilities of a federal judge are to interpret and apply the law to resolve issues. They do not make the laws and they have no power to enforce them. The President and the many executive branches and agencies have the responsibility to enforce federal court decisions.
There are various levels of federal judges and each level needs to be free from political pressures in making decisions on cases before them. The levels and authorities of the various courts are defined in the statutes which created them. Under Article III of the Constitution the federal court system is comprised of the following:
The United States Supreme Court
U.S. Courts of Appeals
U.S. District Courts
Bankruptcy Courts
The responsibility of a federal judge is great and I highly respect those who hold such positions even when I may not agree with some decisions that are made. This is why these positions should be free from political pressure and as such is the reason they hold these positions for life unless they decide to retire. Those who hold these positions are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate as identified in the Constitution. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. The roles these offices play will be discussed later in this article
When researching this article I was amazed at the number of federal courts and the organizational structure of each. To begin there are 89 district courts in the 50 states and they also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The average volume of cases at the district court level is 400 newly filed cases each year. In addition to the number of trials judges conduct sentences, pretrial conferences, settlement conferences, motion hearings, write orders and opinions and consider other court matters in the courtroom and their chamber.
The subject of Administrative law judges is not something most individuals understand or even know their existence. The exception are those who have been involved with them. Taken from www.usajobs.gov the function of an administrative law judge and the major duties are identified below:
"An administrative law judge is one who presides at an administrative trial type hearing to resolve a dispute between a government agency and someone affected by a decision of that agency. The administrative law judge is the initial trier of fact and decision maker. They can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence and make factual and legal determinations. The major duties of an administrative law judge are noted below as taken from a job announcement on www.usajobs.gov."
"ALJs conduct formal hearings involving cases where all interested parties are given advance notice of the hearing; an opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement or proposals of adjustment; and, an opportunity to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other qualified representatives. ALJs rule on preliminary motions, conduct pre-hearing conferences, issue subpoenas, control hearings (which may include written and/or oral testimony and cross-examination), review briefs, and prepare and issue initial or recommended decisions, along with written findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. Oral or documentary evidence may be received, but irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence is excluded. Decisions are issued upon consideration of the whole record, or those parts of it cited by a party and supported by and in accord with reliable, probative, and substantial evidence."
The next two levels of federal courts are the Court of Appeals and Judicial Courts. There are 13 judicial circuits, each with a court of appeals. There are 94 U.S. judicial districts organized into 12 regional circuits and each has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.
The next federal judge to be discussed is a magistrate judge. This judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by majority vote of the active district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United States, based on recommendations of the respective district courts, the judicial councils of the circuits, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary considerably from court to court.
Another federal court with which we all are familiar with the name is a bankruptcy judge. A U.S. bankruptcy judge is a judicial officer of the U.S. district court who is appointed by the majority of judges of the U.S. court of appeals to exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. The number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress. The Judicial Conference of the United States is required to submit recommendations from time to time regarding the number of bankruptcy judges needed. Bankruptcy judges are appointed for 14-year terms. Bankruptcy courts are separate units of the district courts. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. This means that a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in a state court.
The current situation with the auto makers will bring a high profile case before a bankruptcy judge. The events leading up to this situation are complex and the disposition of the details will have far reaching impact. The brands of automobiles available from news reports will be reduced along with the dealers that sell them. While the bankruptcy process will be a difficult one for GM it will also be difficult for those impacted by the details of the fast track bankruptcy negotiations. I feel for the dealers who will be impacted by the details of the bankruptcy agreement with GM and those who hold the financial debt of the company. As indicated in news reports the government will own 70% of the company in return for the financial support given to the company. While I do not agree with the decisions that have been made to bring the situation to this point I do feel that some effort had to be made in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy.
Before discussing the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference there are two special trial courts of which many may not be familiar. The first is the Court of International Trade involving international trade and customs issues. The other is the United States Court of Federal Claims which has jurisdiction over most claims for money damages against the United States, disputes over federal contracts, unlawful taking of private property by the federal government and a variety of other claims against the United States.
The Supreme Court as many are aware is filled by nominations by the President and approval of the Senate. The Supreme Court can choose to hear a case or not. There is no mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court. Those holding positions on the Supreme Court do so for life unless they decide to retire as is the current situation. Regardless those being nominated and considered by the Senate deserve to have an honest review of their qualifications which are determined by Congress. In researching qualifications for this court I could find no formal job qualifications in place on a referral to Congressional determination as to who is qualified.
Currently there is a new nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayer. The review process through the Senate for nominees to the Supreme Court is stressful and any nominee deserves respect. Many nominees have outstanding credentials in their biography and as such should be respected for what they have accomplished. There are going to be ideological differences between a nominee and the Senate committee responsible for reviewing the qualifications. There have been many questions regarding this nominee from both sides on where she stands on various issues. Disagreements can exist on specific issues but this does not make a nominee any less qualified. The point to remember when a nominee is being evaluated for their position on specific issues is that it takes the other justices to make a decision. The key factor in evaluating a nominee for the Supreme Court is whether they qualified to hold the office and are they capable of evaluating a case on the facts in conjunction with the requirements in the Constitution. This however should not be a deciding factor in whether to submit names for a full Senate vote.
The last part of this article involves a discussion concerning the Judicial Conference what it is and the duties and responsibilities of such a conference. The fundamental purpose of the Judicial Conference is to make policy with regard to the administration of the United States Courts. Section 331 of Title 28 specifically provides the requirements. A list of the duties and responsibilities are provided below. It is important to remember these duties involve the management of the United States Court System. It involves making recommendations to Congress for any legislation or regulation that is needed.
Make a comprehensive survey of the conditions of business in the courts of the United States
Prepare plans for the assignment of judges to or from courts of appeals or district courts, where necessary
Submit suggestions to the various courts in the interest of promoting uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business.
Exercise authority provided in 28 U.S.C. Section 372 (c) for the review of circuit council conduct and disability orders filed under that section; and
Carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in use within the federal courts, as prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to law
Other duties of the conference involves supervising the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in the performance of his duties as the administrative officer of the courts of the United States under 28 U.S.C. Section 604. The Chief Justice of the conference is required to submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.
In closing the discussion on federal courts and the Constitution it is again important to state that federal judges of the various courts are appointed for life except in those circumstances identified in this article. There are highly qualified individuals who hold these positions and the decisions they make can change the scope of an issue. I have previously written an article titled Integrity of Judges and their decisions. The point of this article was to address judges decisions and their relationship to the Constitution.
One thing that surprised me in doing research for this article was the organization of the Judicial Conference and its responsibilities. It is great that such an organization exist to make recommendations involving our court system. This is one way our court system and the procedures, legislation and regulations can stay current within the boundaries of the Constitution. Many times we may not always agree with decisions by federal judges but with the Judicial Conference there are mechanisms which monitor the operations of the U.S. Court system.
Our court system is great and I highly respect the organization that was put in place through the Constitution and the opportunities to make suggestions to Congress for any necessary changes. The last point to make which I stated in the beginning is that the responsibilities of a federal judge are to interpret and apply the law to resolve issues. They do not make the laws and they have no power to enforce them. The President and the many executive branches and agencies have the responsibility to enforce federal court decisions. When decisions are made by federal judges that are in conflict with these requirements there are avenues for appeal within the court system. This is great. Let us respect our U.S. Court system even when we may not always agree with decisions that are made.
To begin with there are many federal courts and judges who make decisions involving Federal law or the Constitution. I have great respect for the position of a federal judge or any judge. With regards to federal judges at all levels many times they are involved with controversial issues and the decisions they make can have a far reaching impact. Those who hold the position of a federal judge do so for life except where other terms are identified. This is something while not always popular is necessary. Federal judges must have the power to not worry if they are going to please those in charge above them and they must be free from political pressure. The information presented in this article is taken from www.uscourts.gov. The discussion presented is based upon the requirements identified within this site.
Before a discussion can begin on federal judges and the Constitution the responsibilities must be identified. Per the web site www.uscourts.gov the responsibilities of a federal judge are to interpret and apply the law to resolve issues. They do not make the laws and they have no power to enforce them. The President and the many executive branches and agencies have the responsibility to enforce federal court decisions.
There are various levels of federal judges and each level needs to be free from political pressures in making decisions on cases before them. The levels and authorities of the various courts are defined in the statutes which created them. Under Article III of the Constitution the federal court system is comprised of the following:
The United States Supreme Court
U.S. Courts of Appeals
U.S. District Courts
Bankruptcy Courts
The responsibility of a federal judge is great and I highly respect those who hold such positions even when I may not agree with some decisions that are made. This is why these positions should be free from political pressure and as such is the reason they hold these positions for life unless they decide to retire. Those who hold these positions are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate as identified in the Constitution. The federal Judiciary, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts play no role in the nomination and confirmation process. The roles these offices play will be discussed later in this article
When researching this article I was amazed at the number of federal courts and the organizational structure of each. To begin there are 89 district courts in the 50 states and they also exist in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. The average volume of cases at the district court level is 400 newly filed cases each year. In addition to the number of trials judges conduct sentences, pretrial conferences, settlement conferences, motion hearings, write orders and opinions and consider other court matters in the courtroom and their chamber.
The subject of Administrative law judges is not something most individuals understand or even know their existence. The exception are those who have been involved with them. Taken from www.usajobs.gov the function of an administrative law judge and the major duties are identified below:
"An administrative law judge is one who presides at an administrative trial type hearing to resolve a dispute between a government agency and someone affected by a decision of that agency. The administrative law judge is the initial trier of fact and decision maker. They can administer oaths, take testimony, rule on questions of evidence and make factual and legal determinations. The major duties of an administrative law judge are noted below as taken from a job announcement on www.usajobs.gov."
"ALJs conduct formal hearings involving cases where all interested parties are given advance notice of the hearing; an opportunity to submit facts, arguments, offers of settlement or proposals of adjustment; and, an opportunity to be accompanied, represented, and advised by counsel or other qualified representatives. ALJs rule on preliminary motions, conduct pre-hearing conferences, issue subpoenas, control hearings (which may include written and/or oral testimony and cross-examination), review briefs, and prepare and issue initial or recommended decisions, along with written findings of fact and conclusions of law therein. Oral or documentary evidence may be received, but irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence is excluded. Decisions are issued upon consideration of the whole record, or those parts of it cited by a party and supported by and in accord with reliable, probative, and substantial evidence."
The next two levels of federal courts are the Court of Appeals and Judicial Courts. There are 13 judicial circuits, each with a court of appeals. There are 94 U.S. judicial districts organized into 12 regional circuits and each has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.
The next federal judge to be discussed is a magistrate judge. This judge is a judicial officer of the district court and is appointed by majority vote of the active district judges of the court to exercise jurisdiction over matters assigned by statute as well as those delegated by the district judges. The number of magistrate judge positions is determined by the Judicial Conference of the United States, based on recommendations of the respective district courts, the judicial councils of the circuits, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. A full-time magistrate judge serves a term of eight years. Duties assigned to magistrate judges by district court judges may vary considerably from court to court.
Another federal court with which we all are familiar with the name is a bankruptcy judge. A U.S. bankruptcy judge is a judicial officer of the U.S. district court who is appointed by the majority of judges of the U.S. court of appeals to exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters. The number of bankruptcy judges is determined by Congress. The Judicial Conference of the United States is required to submit recommendations from time to time regarding the number of bankruptcy judges needed. Bankruptcy judges are appointed for 14-year terms. Bankruptcy courts are separate units of the district courts. Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases. This means that a bankruptcy case cannot be filed in a state court.
The current situation with the auto makers will bring a high profile case before a bankruptcy judge. The events leading up to this situation are complex and the disposition of the details will have far reaching impact. The brands of automobiles available from news reports will be reduced along with the dealers that sell them. While the bankruptcy process will be a difficult one for GM it will also be difficult for those impacted by the details of the fast track bankruptcy negotiations. I feel for the dealers who will be impacted by the details of the bankruptcy agreement with GM and those who hold the financial debt of the company. As indicated in news reports the government will own 70% of the company in return for the financial support given to the company. While I do not agree with the decisions that have been made to bring the situation to this point I do feel that some effort had to be made in an attempt to avoid bankruptcy.
Before discussing the Supreme Court and the Judicial Conference there are two special trial courts of which many may not be familiar. The first is the Court of International Trade involving international trade and customs issues. The other is the United States Court of Federal Claims which has jurisdiction over most claims for money damages against the United States, disputes over federal contracts, unlawful taking of private property by the federal government and a variety of other claims against the United States.
The Supreme Court as many are aware is filled by nominations by the President and approval of the Senate. The Supreme Court can choose to hear a case or not. There is no mandatory appeal to the Supreme Court. Those holding positions on the Supreme Court do so for life unless they decide to retire as is the current situation. Regardless those being nominated and considered by the Senate deserve to have an honest review of their qualifications which are determined by Congress. In researching qualifications for this court I could find no formal job qualifications in place on a referral to Congressional determination as to who is qualified.
Currently there is a new nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayer. The review process through the Senate for nominees to the Supreme Court is stressful and any nominee deserves respect. Many nominees have outstanding credentials in their biography and as such should be respected for what they have accomplished. There are going to be ideological differences between a nominee and the Senate committee responsible for reviewing the qualifications. There have been many questions regarding this nominee from both sides on where she stands on various issues. Disagreements can exist on specific issues but this does not make a nominee any less qualified. The point to remember when a nominee is being evaluated for their position on specific issues is that it takes the other justices to make a decision. The key factor in evaluating a nominee for the Supreme Court is whether they qualified to hold the office and are they capable of evaluating a case on the facts in conjunction with the requirements in the Constitution. This however should not be a deciding factor in whether to submit names for a full Senate vote.
The last part of this article involves a discussion concerning the Judicial Conference what it is and the duties and responsibilities of such a conference. The fundamental purpose of the Judicial Conference is to make policy with regard to the administration of the United States Courts. Section 331 of Title 28 specifically provides the requirements. A list of the duties and responsibilities are provided below. It is important to remember these duties involve the management of the United States Court System. It involves making recommendations to Congress for any legislation or regulation that is needed.
Make a comprehensive survey of the conditions of business in the courts of the United States
Prepare plans for the assignment of judges to or from courts of appeals or district courts, where necessary
Submit suggestions to the various courts in the interest of promoting uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business.
Exercise authority provided in 28 U.S.C. Section 372 (c) for the review of circuit council conduct and disability orders filed under that section; and
Carry on a continuous study of the operation and effect of the general rules of practice and procedure in use within the federal courts, as prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to law
Other duties of the conference involves supervising the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts in the performance of his duties as the administrative officer of the courts of the United States under 28 U.S.C. Section 604. The Chief Justice of the conference is required to submit to Congress an annual report of the proceedings of the Judicial Conference and its recommendations for legislation.
In closing the discussion on federal courts and the Constitution it is again important to state that federal judges of the various courts are appointed for life except in those circumstances identified in this article. There are highly qualified individuals who hold these positions and the decisions they make can change the scope of an issue. I have previously written an article titled Integrity of Judges and their decisions. The point of this article was to address judges decisions and their relationship to the Constitution.
One thing that surprised me in doing research for this article was the organization of the Judicial Conference and its responsibilities. It is great that such an organization exist to make recommendations involving our court system. This is one way our court system and the procedures, legislation and regulations can stay current within the boundaries of the Constitution. Many times we may not always agree with decisions by federal judges but with the Judicial Conference there are mechanisms which monitor the operations of the U.S. Court system.
Our court system is great and I highly respect the organization that was put in place through the Constitution and the opportunities to make suggestions to Congress for any necessary changes. The last point to make which I stated in the beginning is that the responsibilities of a federal judge are to interpret and apply the law to resolve issues. They do not make the laws and they have no power to enforce them. The President and the many executive branches and agencies have the responsibility to enforce federal court decisions. When decisions are made by federal judges that are in conflict with these requirements there are avenues for appeal within the court system. This is great. Let us respect our U.S. Court system even when we may not always agree with decisions that are made.
Print
Email
