Courts of Appeals

Courts of Appeals The United States courts of appeals are the intermediate courts in the federal judicial system. They hear appeals from the U.S. district courts and from regulatory agencies, and their rulings are reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court. There are currently twelve general jurisdiction courts of appeals; all except that for the District of Columbia Circuit are composed of at least three states. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a semi‐specialized court that handles all appeals in patent cases as well as appeals from civil service personnel, veterans, and those with financial claims against the federal government. All these appellate courts are composed of judges nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. There are almost 180 judgeships divided among these courts; the largest number is twenty‐eight (the Ninth Circuit on the west coast) and the smallest is six (the First Circuit—part of New England plus Puerto Rico). These courts' senior (semiretired) judges—almost one hundred of them—provide substantial assistance with caseload. Nominations to these courts have become increasingly contentious because of the crucial issues before them and because of presidents' attempts to nominate judges holding particular ideologies. Other specialized appellate courts, whose judges serve for fixed terms, include the Court of Appeals for the Armed Services (see Military Justice) and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Judges of the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review are court of appeals judges designated for service there by the chief justice.

The courts of appeals are mandatory jurisdiction courts. A litigant may appeal a final judgment to them from a district court or regulatory agency as a matter of right; the grounds for appeals must be claimed procedural errors or errors of law. The courts of appeals have experienced steady increases in their caseload, especially since the 1980s; by the late 1990s they were disposing over fifty thousand cases a year. Most cases in the courts of appeals are decided by a panel of three judges, although on rare occasions the panel's decision may be sufficiently controversial that the entire court rehears the appeal en banc and issues a new opinion. After an appeal is filed, the case is briefed by both parties, and counsel may be allowed oral argument before the court. After taking a case under advisement, the court typically issues a disposition several months later. Starting in the 1970s, the courts of appeals began to issue non‐precedential (and initially “unpublished”) rulings in cases where application of the law was simple. Such rulings now account for four‐fifths of the federal appeals courts' dispositions. Decisional possibilities in a case include affirming or reversing in whole or in part, vacating the lower court or agency disposition, or dismissing the appeal. Judges may write the majority opinion or may write separately, concurring in the reasoning but adding some thoughts or concurring only in the result; or they may dissent, disagreeing with the majority's result or reasoning.

The courts of appeals marked their centennial in 1991. The Evarts Act of 1891, which established the basic elements of the present federal appellate system, capped almost three decades of lawyers' and legislative reformers' attempts to change the process of review by the circuit courts of appeals (see Judiciary Act of 1869). The reformers also sought to relieve the overburdened Supreme Court by channeling appeals through these newly created courts. Congress allowed the Supreme Court to decide what cases it would hear by making review in some cases dependent on the Court granting a writ of certiorari, which is a discretionary writ.

The Supreme Court's certiorari jurisdiction expanded over the last century, most notably in the Judiciary Act of 1925. The Court's mandatory jurisdiction was almost completely eliminated by legislation in 1988 (see Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act). As the Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction expanded, the courts of appeals' importance grew. The growth in the court of appeals' caseload coupled with the Supreme Court's reduction in the number of cases it decided each term meant that the courts of appeals' rulings remained final in all but roughly 1 percent of the cases heard.

The courts of appeals have also gained prominence because of the substance of their caseload. For their first twenty‐five years, these courts dealt primarily with private law appeals. Diversity cases (suits between citizens of different states), bankruptcy, patent, and admiralty cases made up most of their work. However, as federal regulation increased, first during the Progressive Era, then during the New Deal, and finally during the 1960s and 1970s, the role of the courts of appeals changed as appeals from federal administrative agencies became a larger part of their caseload. Other developments that increased these courts' policy‐making importance were the increased scope of federal prosecutions, especially those dealing with civil rights, drugs, racketeering, and political corruption, increased private litigation over various types of discrimination; and litigation concerning aliens' attempts to gain political asylum. Also adding to their importance were their post‐1954 use to oversee school desegregation and reform of state institutions such as prisons and mental hospitals, along with controversies like that over abortion.

Bibliography

Jonathan M. Cohen , Inside Appellate Courts: The Impact of Court Organization on Judicial Decision Making in the United States Courts of Appeals (2002).
Donald R. Songer,, Reginald S. Sheehan,, and and Susan B. Haire , Continuity and Change on the United States Courts of Appeals (2002).

Rayman L. Solomon; revised by and Stephen L. Wasby