Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges/Notability

This project page provides guidance with respect to the notability of judges, courts, and courthouses in the United States.

General Wikipedia notability standards

Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians and judges states with respect to judges:

The following are presumed to be notable:

• Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature. This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.
• Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.

Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline.

Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Buildings and objects states with respect to buildings:

• Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

---

This project page expands on the criteria set forth above specifically with respect to topics within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judges.

General definitions

A court is a body created by law to adjudicate disputes, and given such authority as is needed to carry out this function. A jurisdiction may have several different kinds of courts, with different levels of authority. These courts may operate in a hierarchy, of may be independent of each other. Most courts are trial courts, which hear evidence such as the testimony of witnesses in order to resolve disputes between parties or determine whether an accused person is guilty of a crime. Other courts are appellate courts, which hear appeals from parties who disagree with the outcome of their case before a trial court. In some cases, particular courts may serve as trial courts for some kinds of actions, but have appellate authority over lower courts for others.

A judge is a person who, depending on the laws of the jurisdiction, has been elected or appointed to preside over a court. A judge of the highest appellate court in a jurisdiction is often known as a justice. A courthouse is a building or structure built for the purpose of housing trials, containing courtrooms and offices for the presiding judge and necessary staff members.

Federal courts, judges, and courthouses of the United States

United States federal courts

All courts constituted by the United States, including extraterritorial courts, and temporary or emergency courts, are inherently notable. These courts are constituted by acts of the United States Congress, signed into law by the President of the United States, and are assigned jurisdiction over matters of national importance. Although such courts are legally required to exercise authority only within the constraints of the Constitution of the United States, occasionally courts have been formed which have later been found to be unconstitutional.

United States federal courts are generally created by the passage of a law by the United States Congress establishing the court, its authority, location, and number of judges. The determination that a court is unconstitutional is an inherently notable event, as it requires the judicial branch of the United States (usually involving the United States Supreme Court) to strike down an act of Congress, or to find that the President has acted without authorization of Congress in creating a court.

Federal districts and duty stations

The primary Federal trial courts of the United States are the United States District Courts. Historically, these have usually been created with jurisdiction over a single entire state, and thereafter occasionally subdivided into units with smaller geographic coverage. Individual District Courts usually have a number of cities within their geographic jurisdiction in which they conduct proceedings. For example, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, has courthouses in Norfolk, Richmond, and Alexandria. These locations are sometimes referred to as "duty stations" with respect to the judges assigned to them. However, even though a single duty station may see the use of different courthouses over time, these are not considered separate courts. It is possible that such important events occur in the federal district courts of a particular city that a separate article on the history of that duty station might be merited, but a duty station would need to have an extraordinary level of notable activity to merit an article separate from that of the district that contains it.

United States federal judges

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States

• Justices are inherently notable, and in fact are generally among the most notable individuals convered in the encyclopedia.
• Nominees are inherently notable, regardless of whether the nomination succeeds, or is acted upon at all; this includes nominees who die, withdraw, or are withdrawn, before any action is taken by the Senate.
• Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
• Persons whose names are widely and independently reported in media sources as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
• As a practical matter, it is uncommon and highly unlikely for an individual to be considered for an appointment to the Supreme Court unless they are already highly notable, or have held positions which confer notability.

Judges of the United States courts of appeals

• All such judges are inherently notable, as they are selected by the President of the United States, require confirmation by the United States Senate, are appointed for life terms, and have substantial influence in the development of the law over a wide variety of cases.
• Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are inherently notable, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event.
• Nominees whose nomination does not or has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability. In practice, such nominees are typically either confirmed or rejected by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent. Although a nominee who withdraws, dies, is withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or is returned by the United States Senate without being processed is not inherently notable, such a nominee is inherently notable if their withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate.
• Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
• Persons whose names are widely and independently reported in media sources as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.

Judges of the United States district courts

• All such judges are inherently notable, as they are selected by the President of the United States, require confirmation by the United States Senate, are appointed for life terms, and have the power to overturn as unconstitutional decisions of state supreme courts.
• Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the United States Senate are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
• Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed by the Senate, at which point their notability will become inherent.
• Nominees who withdraw, die, are withdrawn by the President prior to a vote on the nomination, or are returned by the United States Senate without being processed are not inherently notable. If a withdrawal from consideration is prompted by conflict over the nomination, which makes it tantamount to a defeat in the Senate, such a nominee is evaluated as though they had been rejected by the Senate.
• Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability.
• Persons whose names are widely and independently reported in media sources as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability.
• Judges and nominees of the United States Court of International Trade, an Article III Tribunal, are treated identically with judges and nominees of United States District Courts.

Note that many presidents have articles in Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States (presently, these exist for all presidents since Lyndon B. Johnson). Where a rejected nominee is not notable enough to merit a separate entry, it is appropriate to redirect their name to the section of such an article where their nomination and rejection or withdrawal is noted.

Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges

• Magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of the district in which they sit. Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability.
• Being the first U.S. magistrate judge or bankruptcy judge to be appointed as a member if a particular demographic (e.g., gender, ethnicity, or religion), if reliably reported, is generally substantial indicia of notability.
  • Being the first U.S. magistrate judge or bankruptcy judge to be appointed within a specific district or within a specific state as a member if a particular demographic (e.g., gender, ethnicity, or religion), is generally not substantial indicia of notability, unless reliable sources provide substantial coverage of that status.
• Appointees or potential appointees to such positions are not inherently notable. Since the pool of potential nominees is very broad, the mere possibility that an individual may come to hold such a position is not evidence of notability at all.

Specialty court judges

• Judges of certain Article I tribunals, which are appointed by the President, require Senate confirmation, are appointed to serve for terms lasting longer than two presidential terms, and which hold substantial authority over their area of specialization, are inherently notable. Courts to which this applies include the following:
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
  • The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
  • The United States Court of Federal Claims
  • The United States Tax Court
• Nominees or potential nominees to these courts are treated as nominees to United States district courts.

Administrative law judges

• Judges who are hired by government agencies, such as those of the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability. In particular, administrative law judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts, are highly likely to be notable.
• Candidates or potential candidates for such positions are not inherently notable. Since the pool of potential nominees is very broad, the mere possibility that an individual may come to hold such a position is not evidence of notability at all.

United States federal courthouses

Most United States federal courthouses are buildings constructed solely or primarily for the purpose of housing federal court proceedings, including courtrooms and judicial chambers, and other facilities such as a clerk's office for receiving filings. Most federal courthouses have been built in accordance with specific congressional legislation directing the construction of such a building and appropriating funds for it. Occasionally, courthouses have been created through the federal purchase of existing privately owned or state-owned buildings, or through the conversion of federally owned buildings initially built for other purposes. In each of these cases, substantial renovations are often required before the structure is suitable for use as a federal courthouse. Rarely, the federal government has leased space in privately owned buildings for use by a particular federal court for the period of the term of the lease, particularly to serve as temporary quarters while existing facilities are renovated or while new facilities are constructed.

• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for the United States Supreme Court, are inherently notable.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for any United States Court of Appeal are inherently notable.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for United States district courts are highly likely to be notable.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for United States specialty courts are highly likely to be notable.
• Structures built for other purposes which are incidentally or occasionally used to house trials are not inherently notable based on such use, although they may be notable for other reasons. This includes buildings in which space is leased by the federal government for the purpose of housing a federal court for the term of the lease.

State courts, judges, and courthouses of the United States

United States state courts

State Supreme Courts are inherently notable for being the highest judicial body of their jurisdiction.

All appellate courts and trial courts of general jurisdiction constituted by a state of the United States, including temporary or emergency courts, are inherently notable. These courts generally have the ability to hear both criminal and civil matters, including the disposition of capital cases and civil cases of substantial import.

Most states have courts that are designated as state courts, and courts that are designated as county or municipal courts. However, most of these courts exist under the constitutions and laws of the state itself, and should be treated as courts of the state. State courts are also usually divided into geographic jurisdictions, either by county or by region in the state. These individual jurisdictions are not inherently notable, although an individual state jurisdiction might be notable if other evidence exists of notable events occurring in the court of that jurisdiction.

United States state court judges

Justices of state Supreme Courts

• Justices are inherently notable for serving on the highest judicial body of their jurisdiction, and having final judicial authority over issues of state law.
• States that have a bifurcated justice system for civil and criminal matters have two high courts, typically a state Supreme Court with civil jurisdiction and a state Court of Criminal Appeals with criminal jurisdiction; justices of each of the high courts in these systems are inherently notable, as they serve on the highest judicial body having jurisdiction over the issues that they consider, and have final judicial authority over the issues of state law brought before their court.
• Nominees whose nomination is rejected by the state legislature, where approval of the legislature is required, are not inherently notable; however, as the rejection of a nominee to such a position is a rare and politically important event, this is strong evidence of notability that can be established by any other indicia of notability.
• Nominees whose nomination has not yet come to a vote are not inherently notable. In practice, most such nominees will be confirmed, at which point their notability will become inherent.
• Unsuccessful candidates for elected offices are not inherently notable. Notability may be established where an unsuccessful candidacy receives substantial media coverage.
• Persons whose names are floated by the executive branch as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is evidence of notability that can be established by other strong indicia of notability.
• Persons whose names are widely and independently reported in media sources as being under consideration for nomination are not inherently notable, but this is evidence of notability that can be established by any other strong indicia of notability.

Judges of state courts of appeals

• Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability. In particular, state courts of appeals judges who serve for a comparatively long time, who preside over important cases, or whose opinions are often cited by higher courts in the state, by federal courts, or by state courts in other states, are highly likely to be notable.
• Being the first judge in a state to be appointed to a court of appeals as a member if a particular demographic (e.g., gender, ethnicity, or religion), if reliably reported, is generally substantial indicia of notability.
• Nominees whose nomination has been rejected, or has not yet come to a vote, are not inherently notable.
• Potential nominees are not inherently notable, irrespective of how their names are reported.
• Unsuccessful candidates for elected offices are not inherently notable.

Judges of state trial courts of general jurisdiction

• Such judges are not inherently notable, but holding such a position is strong evidence of notability that can be established by other indicia of notability.
• Being the first judge in a state to be appointed to a judicial office as a member if a particular demographic (e.g., gender, ethnicity, or religion), if reliably reported, is generally substantial indicia of notability.
• Nominees whose nomination has been rejected, or has not yet come to a vote, are not inherently notable.
• Potential nominees are not inherently notable, irrespective of how their names are reported.
• Unsuccessful candidates for elected offices are not inherently notable.

State specialty court judges

• Such judges are not inherently notable.
• Unsuccessful candidates, nominees, or potential nominees to such positions are not inherently notable.

United States state courthouses

There are a wide variety of buildings in use as state courthouses in the United States. Many of these are buildings constructed solely or primarily for the purpose of housing state court proceedings, including courtrooms and judicial chambers, and other facilities such as a clerk's office for receiving filings.

• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for a state Supreme Court, are inherently notable.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for state appellate courts, are not inherently notable, but are highly likely to be notable, particularly if appeals of notable cases were heard in them.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for state trial courts, are not inherently notable, but are likely to be notable, particularly if notable cases were heard in them.
• Purpose-built structures constructed to serve, in whole or in part, as facilities for state specialty courts, are not inherently notable, although they may be notable for other reasons.
• Structures built for other purposes which are incidentally or occasionally used to house trials are not inherently notable based on such use, although they may be notable for other reasons.