Talk:Federal tribunals in the United States

DYK nomination

I just nominated this article to be listed on the Did you know section (see Template talk:Did you know).

Did you know ... that in the United States, a federal court can be classified as either an Article I or Article III tribunal?

People will love this article! -- Toytoy 02:50, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

We're on the Main Page!

And this article is less than 16 hours old! -- Toytoy 16:48, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Relocate the Article I controversy

I propose that we relocate the Article I controversy to the end of the article. Article III courts are usually the "courts" in people's daily languages. Very few people and even lawyers ever went to an administrative court. We have to emphasis the importance of Article III courts. -- Toytoy 03:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, you're partly correct. It's true that Article III courts are the true courts both in the legal sense and in common parlance. But it's not true that few people or lawyers ever go to administrative courts. Indeed, administrative courts do much of the grunt work in the federal system and even the trial level Article III courts are almost appeals courts much of the time now. The only huge exception is criminal law, of course, where only Article III courts can exercise federal jurisdiction. CoramVobis 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I second editor CoramVobis on this point. For example, in Federal tax matters the United States Tax Court, an Article I court, hears far more tax cases than any Article III court. Yours, Famspear 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Patent judges

There are also several administrative patent judges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see interference proceeding. I think they are also Article I judges. -- Toytoy 07:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• There are administrative law judges in dozens of Federal agencies, not just the Patent Office, and they all exercise Article I authority. Russ Blau (talk) 16:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

ALJs actually do have life tenure though they are not article III judges. The article is confusing on this point. However the decisions of ALJs are ususally appealable to an agency appeals board which is not made up of ALJs so otherwise, the article is correct. ALJs are certainly not Article III judges. One can argue that many of them are Article II judges, but the distinction between Article I courts and Article II courts does not seem important. Esorlem 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger?

Perhaps we should merge this article with United States federal courts. That page is rather sparse at present, and I find the title and organization of this one rather awkward. Thoughts? Ddye 17:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, since I posted the above I've gotten more ideas (which I've also cross-posted to the discussion on US federal courts). I think that while this article is young (and thus has less links to fix) we can do a more extensive reorganization of the US judicial pages. I think that United States federal courts should become a very broad introduction to the different types of courts (pretty much incorporating most of the info from this article). Then the information there about the structure of the (article III) judicial branch should be moved to a new page on the United States federal judciary (or judicial branch, etc.) which would have an overview of the three levels of courts (with links to those pages), the appeals process, etc. Finally, we could create an Article I courts page, where we'll put the controversy section, and which we can eventually expand to include a discussion of their history, purposes, procedures, etc. The existing links to US federal courts will still make sense after this change, so we'll just have to fix links to this page. So...am I crazy? Ddye 17:34, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're not crazy. I think your suggestion is a good one. Can we keep the United States federal courts article and let it absorbe this one? Afterall, United States federal courts = Article I tribunals + Article III tribunals. It is logical to use "United States federal courts" as the article's title. -- Toytoy 17:39, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I think I got a little carried away in my desire to structure things. For now we should just move the information on this page to United States federal courts and integrate it there. If that page ever starts to fill up, then we can consider seperate Article I and Article III pages. Ddye 17:46, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're thinking is headed - one big article that holistically describes the relationship between all of the various branches of the federal courts... we'll need a chart (we can probably find a pd sample on some U.S. gov't website), and perhaps a sidebar template to link together the different articles on individual types of federal courts. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:08, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

What About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court?

In all this discussion, I see no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC} which is responsible for considering surveillance & physical search orders from the Dept. of Justice & US intelligence agencies. I don't even know if there's a Wikipedia article on the existence of this Court . . .

A Google search for "court foreign intelligence" will turn up a number of hits, including an "Ask Yahoo!" item dealing with this Court.

As far as I know, these "adm. law judges" are government employees. They only became "judges" since 1970s or 1980s. These "judges" are not independant. Their decisions have to be reviewed by their agencies. I really don't know if we should call them judges. -- Toytoy 15:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

if you read some of the articles available via a Google search, you'll find that the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court are Article III judges. -- tharkun860 June 29, 2005 05:22 (UTC)

If they have lifetime appointments and irreduceable salaries, they are by definition Art. III. bd2412 T 02:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

FISA is not an Article III tribunal. 66.171.197.20 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• The 7-year term means they are an Article I tribunal.—Markles 12:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Except that, according to Glidden Company v. Zdanok 370 U.S. 530 (1962), Article III judges can only be assigned to Article III courts. (See section VI-B of the opinion of the court.) — DLJessup (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. Their job tenure is lifetime, even if their tenure on this court is limited. Thus, I concur that this is an Article III court.—Markles 21:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Military COAs

I just came across a couple of orphan pages for the military COAs. I'm not sure where to put them, but they need to be wikified.

• Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
• Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
• Army Court of Criminal Appeals
• Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals

Mneumisi 12:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Article II Tribunals

In the same vein, we should probably include an item here somewhere for Article II tribunals such as courts martial -- while some fall neatly into the Article I category (legislatively created -- such as the Article II tribunals reconstituted as Article I tribunals after Congress passed the Military Commissions Act to deal with Guantanamo), some do not (inherently created by the executive using Article II commander-in-chief powers). While the legal status of such tribunals is up in the air, the recent Guantanamo detainee cases have made such tribunals a live controversy. 71.63.19.244 02:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Article II court is the High Court of American Samoa. This is the trial and appeals court for the territory of American Samoa, but it is not an Article I court (as other territorial courts are) because it was not established pursuant to an Act of Congress. It was created originally by the Department of the Navy (who administered AS after cession in 1901, not the Secretary of Interior administers it). Appeals lie from the High Court to the Secretary of the Interior, who in practice does not exercise his appellate authority. Final judgments can be reviewed in the DC district court under the Administrative Procedures Act, but only for violations of the Constitution or the Federal statutes, not for violations of AS law. Manojb 08:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This stuff about Article II courts is just plain wrong. I've deleted it. It had no references, no verification. In fact, courts can ONLY be established in accordance to some authority provided by the Constitution. Accordingly, we have bankruptcy courts, military courts, etc. because the Constitution says or implies there is some need for such courts. Congress then sets up such courts by enacting laws. The article (as it was written) did not reference any such law. Now it is true that the President (or other secretary) proposes or appoints "all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law" (Article II, Section 3), but that does not mean the court or tribunal is established by the President. (Note the "shall be established by Law" language.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ratification Act of 1929 vested "all civil, judicial, and military powers" in a designee of the President, who delegated the authority to the Secretary of the Interior in Executive Order 10264, who in turn delegated authority to the court by promulgating the Constitution of American Samoa in 1960. (The "civil" authority refers to the courts.) Hence, it is a court established pursuant to Article II. You will find the references in those articles. From what I can tell, the Secretary of the Interior can, and has, overruled the court on his own intiative; and he can, because it owes its existance to him. Int21h (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the info about the Ratification Act is correct in that Congress used its authority under Article IV to govern the territory. E.g., it enacted the law that allowed for setting up the court, etc. But that law does not mean there is an "Article II" court in Samoa. Article II says nothing about setting up courts. Consider the other courts that the federal government maintains – Article III courts exist because the Constitution, in Article III, says they shall exist; Bankruptcy Courts, Courts-martial, Immigration courts, etc. exist because Article I says Congress has the authority to govern the military, set up a system for bankruptcy, allow for immigration, etc. As Congress used its authority under Article IV to set up the Samoa government, even if supervised by the Executive (Sec. of Interior), we have an Article IV court in Samoa.--S. Rich (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Congress did not make any law to govern the territory, but just gave the power to do so to the President. It just gave carte blanche' authority to the President; it set nothing up. It is a perfect example of an Article II court. It was not authorized by Congress, it was authorized by the President's cabinet member. Article II does not say anything about setting up courts, you're right; but he did anyways. It is not supervised by the President, it is an extension of the President; Congress has set up no government for American Samoa.

There's an easy way to tell: the President can ignore them, or destroy them at any time he wants, for any reason, no questions asked, and with no recourse. Int21h (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

For example, the Foreign Service Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 999) authorized the President to name a Chief of Mission and explicitly allowed him to make regulations to execute the act, something they never did for American Samoa. The President then made Executive Order 10062 that authorized a "United States High Commission for Germany", who then created the "United States Court for Berlin". The United States Court for Berlin is an Article II court. Its jurisdiction is defined entirely by the President, and can reach US territory, such as American Samoa, at his discretion. Like the High Court, there is no appeal to an Article I, Article II, or Article IV court, or even an ability to appeal at all. Just because it was ultimately authorized pursuant to a law or its jurisdiction covers US territory does not make it an Article IV court. Int21h (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the key word here is "tribunals" - not "courts". A tribunal is merely a body empowered to take a dispute brought before it, find facts, and resolve the question. If an agency has an in-house body of this sort set up by the executive and rendering opinions that are basically subject to be ignored or overturned administratively, then it is not really an Article I or Article III tribunal, leaving only Article II as the source of its authority (under the President's power to enforce the law). bd2412 T 20:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, compare:

"As previously noted, the President has delegated to the United States Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Germany his “supreme authority … with respect to all responsibilities, duties, and governmental functions of the United States in all Germany [including Berlin] under the supervision of the Secretary of the State and subject to the ultimate direction of the President.” ... As a matter of United States law, it is a court established pursuant to the powers granted to the President by Article II of the United States Constitution." (United States v. Tiede, US Court for Berlin, 86 F.R.D. 227 (1979))

to:

"Until Congress shall provide for the government of such islands, all civil, judicial, and military powers shall be vested in such person or persons and shall be exercised in such manner as the President of the United States shall direct; and the President shall have power to remove said officers and fill the vacancies so occasioned." (48 U.S.C. § 1661) Int21h (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You say "No, Congress did not make any law to govern the territory, but just gave the power to do so to the President." But you are not considering how Congress did this or by what authority. Actually, Congress "gave power" by enacting a law and the President signed that law putting it into effect. The law Congress enacted said "President, you go ahead and set up whatever 'court' in the territory of Samoa that you want. We are too busy with other things." But without that law, the President had no authority under Article II to set up anything. Regarding Tiede, the President was acting as Commander in Chief and had authority over the Occupied Territory of Germany. The Foreign Service Act (a law enacted by Congress and signed by the President) further delegated all kinds of authority to the US authorities in Germany. (Indeed, the EO [1] 10608 says he's acting as CinC. Unfortunately, the term "Article II court" has become common, even in legal journals. See, for example [2], a William & Mary Law Review article which uses the term while discussing military commissions. (Compare: [3].) While I disagree with this characterization (it is sloppy legal scholarship), I am not Sisyphus. At the same time, please observe WP:OR. Citing a footnote in US v Tiede, a very unique case, is not a good encyclopedic editing practice. And be careful of the Slippery Slope. That is, if the US Berlin Court is an "Article II court" because the President issued an EO, then every "court" described in the Federal Register or promologated by an EO becomes an "Article II court" and there is no distinction between any of the Article I and "Article II" courts. My basic position -- that nothing in Article II authorizes the President to set up any courts -- will stand, but I'm not going to fight editing efforts to the contrary.--S. Rich (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, we're talking about tribunals, not courts. Suppose two interest groups, an auto manufacturing group and a union, find themselves unable to get along, and accuse each other of various slights. The President decides to resolve this by getting each group to send a few representatives to a proceeding where three panelists selected by the President will listen to their grievances and issue a resolution, to which the parties agree to be bound. They meet in executive office space, and the panelists selected are all executive branch employees, but there is no act of Congress establishing or empowering these proceedings at all, merely the decision of the President that this is a good idea, and his or her inherent power to execute the rather amorphous powers of the bully pulpit. I think that would properly be called a "tribunal", and one which exists under no authority but Article II. bd2412 T 00:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Bah. I concede the point. It seems like Mormons v. Hodel, 830 F.2d 374 (1987), makes it pretty clear it is an Article IV court. Int21h (talk) 07:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

US Court in Berlin

I'm still confused as to why the "United States Court in Berlin" is not an Article II court, per US v. Tiede. The Court's authority derives from the powers of an occupying military power as recognised under international law, which is exercised in the ultimate by the President as Commander-in-Chief. The fact that the President delegated to the US Ambassador, whose role is governed under the Foreign Service Act, the task of setting up this court, doesn't make the Court somehow a creature of the Foreign Service Act. Hypothetically, suppose the Foreign Service Act, and related laws, never existed - the President could still appoint Ambassadors, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, per Article II of the Constitution. Congress may, and has, pass laws governing Ambassadors, but no Congressional legislation is necessary for Ambassadors to exist, and the role of Ambassador was not created by Congress (it was created by Article II). Alternatively, the President, rather than delegating this power to the US Ambassador, could have chosen to retain this power personally, and hence appointed this court. So, the US Court in Berlin was not an Article I or IV court, its an Article II Court. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Article IV and Article III tribunals

Article IV and Article III courts.

References:

United States territorial court

NGUYEN V. UNITED STATES (01-10873) 540 U.S. 935 (2003), The United States Supreme Court, retrieved 2010-01-06

--Seablade (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this article has expanded to cover tribunals under all four Constitutional provisions permitting them (although I suppose a tribunal mandated by a treaty could be considered an Article VI tribunal), should we rename the article to something broader? bd2412 T 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Article I and Article III tribunals → Tribunals in the United States – Or possibly another title, if someone can suggest one. This article discusses Article IV tribunals as well, so I feel that the title is slightly misleading. NW (Talk) 13:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Other possible titles: Federal tribunals in the United States, Article I, Article III and Article IV tribunals, Types of federal tribunals in the United States. NW (Talk) 14:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not the only Article III tribunals...

The Article III tribunals section states that the enumerated courts are the current ones, basically the usual court structure plus the Court of International Trade. That may be true today, however both the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were once Article I and Article III courts, after some intervening changes. Both were (separately) abolished in 1982. Technically [after looking at it again] it is accurately worded, but that historic detail might be relevant if anyone wanted to add it.

That's probably not completely relevant, but I may add the line "current" or something similar to that. If anyone else has details though please add them. Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Article IV tribunals section

There is some confusion. The last sentence of the first paragraph states, "Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.". The beginning of the next paragraph states, "An example is the High Court of American Samoa...". As far as I know, and the Wikipedia article indicates, the High Court of American Samoa is still an Article IV court. "An example is..." would be indicative of referring to the High Court of American Samoa as being defunct. Maybe the sentence should read:

• "The High Court of American Samoa, an Article IV tribunal, is a court established pursuant to the Constitution of American Samoa.", or something like this. Otr500 (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I expect the confusion arose because the part about defunct courts was added after the rest of the section had been written, leaving it unclear what the word "example" referred back to. Perhaps a simpler fix might just be to change it to "An example of a territorial court is...." ? Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done Otr500 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good work. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Board of Immigration Appeals is not an Article 1 Court

The list of Article 1 courts perhaps incorrectly include BIA: See An Urgent Priority: Why Congress Should Establish an Article I Immigration Court, by Hon. Dana Leigh Marks among others. 786wiki (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Retrocession?

The article says:

Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.

What retrocessions? Is this about retrocession of unincorporated territories to other countries? Or giving part of DC back to Virginia? Or giving part of an incorporated territory back to a state? Or what? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but United States territorial court uses the same language. meamemg (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

What are their real powers?

Hello 2001:569:7BCD:6900:9D90:B7A:69CA:E3C (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)