United States District Courts
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS
In enacting Article III, the Framers of the Constitution authorized the establishment of a federal judicial system consisting of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress might decide to establish. In the judiciary act of 1789 Congress created a Supreme Court, divided the country into three circuits, authorized a circuit court to sit in each circuit, and established a federal district court in each of the states. The Supreme Court was the only truly appellate court in the system. Unlike the modern courts of appeal, the old circuit courts, while exercising some appellate jurisdiction, were intended to be the chief federal trial courts. A Supreme Court Justice riding the circuit and judges of the district courts in the circuit manned each of these circuit courts.
The federal district courts were empowered to sit at various times in specified locations within the states where they were located. They were tribunals of very limited jurisdiction and originally had as their main function the adjudication of admiralty and maritime matters. It was anticipated that the state trial courts or federal circuit courts would handle, as trial courts, the most important legal issues facing the new nation. The federal district courts were empowered to try minor criminal cases. In addition, they had concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts over suits by aliens for tort violations of a treaty or the law of nations, suits against consuls, and disputes in which the federal government initiated the proceeding and the matter in controversy was $100 or less. However, district court jurisdiction was exclusive in admiralty, over seizures of land for violation of federal statutes, and over seizures under import, navigation, and trade statutes.
This limited and specialized jurisdiction has steadily expanded. Today the district court is the only federal nonspecialized court, handling both criminal and civil matters. Among the latter are admiralty cases, federal question cases, and cases within the diversity jurisdiction (cases between different states). In a diversity case the matter in controversy must exceed $10,000. No jurisdictional amount is normally required for the other exercises of the district court's civil jurisdiction. Appeals from a district court go to the united states court of appeals.
The first district court to be organized was the district court of New York. That court began functioning on November 3, 1789, and was the predecessor to the current district court for the Southern District of New York. Even today judges of the Southern District refer to theirs as the "Mother Court."
As the system was originally conceived, each state was to contain at least one federal district and one federal court. There has been no deviation from this pattern as the country has expanded from thirteen to fifty states. In addition, the district of columbia and the federal territories (the Virgin Islands, puerto rico, and Guam) are each organized as a federal district with a district court. In over half the states, although there may be a number of federal district judges who sit in separate locations throughout the state, there is only one federal district. Twelve states are divided into two federal districts; some states have three federal districts; and California, New York, and Texas are subdivided into four federal districts.
As the country has expanded, the number of federal district judges has increased. Since 1954 the roster of federal judges has grown through enactment of legislation authorizing additional judgeships for federal district courts nationwide. The Omnibus Judgeship Act of 1978 raised the number of authorized district judges from 399 to 516. The Southern District of New York has twenty-seven authorized judgeships, the largest number of any district in the country.
Federal district judges are nominated by the President and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. The prevailing practice is for the selection of the nominee to come to the President from the Department of Justice. If one or both of the senators from the state in question belong to the President's party, the candidate for nomination is proposed by one or both senators and submitted to the Department of Justice for approval and recommendation to the President for nomination. Today few candidates are nominated and sent to the Senate for confirmation without first being found qualified by the American Bar Association. When the President decides to nominate a candidate, the federal bureau of investigation undertakes a security check. If the candidate is cleared, the President announces the nomination and sends the name to the Senate. The senate judiciary committee holds hearings, which are usually one-day affairs for candidates for federal district courts. If the Senate Judiciary Committee approves, the nomination is voted on by the full Senate.
An Article III judge has life tenure during good behavior, and his salary cannot be diminished while he is in office. The only way to remove a federal district judge from office is by impeachment. Of course, a federal judge, like any other person, may be prosecuted for criminal law violations. Bribery has been the most frequent charge, but criminal prosecutions of federal judges are rare and attempts to remove them by impeachment have been infrequent.
When the first change of political power occurred in the United States at the national level, from the Federalist party to the Republican party of thomas jefferson, the Jeffersonians commenced impeachment proceedings against two judges appointed by the Federalists and disliked by the Republicans: john pickering, a judge of the district court in New Hampshire, and samuel chase, an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Pickering was convicted by the Senate in 1803, but the requisite two-thirds Senate majority could not be mustered to convict Chase. Since that time impeachment to unseat a federal judge has not been a successful political weapon. Partisan politics has from time to time generated unsuccessful calls for impeachment of various judges.
A federal district court judgeship carries considerable prestige. It is a presidential appointment; it is a national rather than a local office; and federal district court judgeships are limited in number. District judges in the main have had prior careers as prominent or distinguished lawyers before going on the bench. They are drawn for the most part from the middle and upper strata of our society. They are generally alumni of the best known law schools of the nation or of the state in which they will serve. They have generally had successful careers in private practice, often with backgrounds as federal, state, or local prosecutors. A few are former academics, and some come to court from public service careers outside government.
Until the twentieth century, all federal district judges were white males. The first woman to be confirmed as a federal judge was Florence Allen, who was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1934. The first woman appointed to the district court was Burneta Matthews, who was given an interim appointment to the District of Columbia bench in 1949. She was confirmed by the Senate in 1950 for a permanent appointment. Constance Baker Motley was the first black woman to be appointed to the federal bench. She was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1966, and in 1982 became chief judge of that court.
william hastie was the first black to be made a federal judge. He was appointed to the District Court of the Virgin Islands in 1937 and in 1949 was named to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. James Parsons, appointed judge of the Northern District of Illinois in 1961, was the first black named a district judge in the continental United States. Since these initial appointments the number of blacks, women, and members of other ethnic minorities has grown steadily.
The first Judiciary Act authorized each court to make rules for conducting its own business, and in 1842 the Supreme Court was empowered to regulate process, pleading, proof and discovery in equity, admiralty, and law cases in the district and circuit courts. In 1938 uniform rules for conducting civil cases, entitled the federal rules of civil procedure, were adopted for the federal system. In 1946 the federal rules of criminal procedure were enacted. These rules have achieved uniformity of procedure and practice in the federal district courts throughout the nation.
The typical calendar of civil cases in a federal district court contains a plethora of complex cases involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement claims; federal securities law violations; civil rights infractions; private antitrust claims; shareholders' derivative suits; immigration and naturalization cases; employment, age, and housing discrimination claims; and claims under a variety of other federal statutes, such as the freedom of information act, Investment Advisers Act, Commodities Exchange Act, fair labor standards act, and Federal Employers' Liability Act. In addition, there are seamen's injury and cargo damage claims, habeas corpus petitions by both state and federal prisoners, and litigation based on diversity jurisdiction. The criminal case load involves a variety of infractions defined in the United States criminal code.
Among the primary functions of the federal district courts are the vindication of federal rights secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The federal district court is often called upon to hold a state law or act unconstitutional because it violates federal constitutional guarantees or has been preempted by federal legislation. Obviously, the exercise of this power by federal district courts has the potential for creating friction and disharmony between state and federal courts. A lower federal court's power to strike down a state law on federal constitutional grounds, in the face of a contrary ruling by the highest court of the state, is not an easy pill for state judges to swallow. Federal courts have devised doctrines of comity and abstention to ease the friction. A growing number of federal judges, recognizing that state judges, too, have a duty to protect and enforce federal rights, have been inclined to give increasing deference to state court determinations of federal constitutional questions.
A burgeoning federal caseload undoubtedly promotes this inclination toward accommodation and also promotes a tightening of limitations on federal habeas corpus review of state court criminal convictions. A habeas corpus petition enables a state prisoner, after unsuccessfully appealing his conviction through the state court system, to have the matter reviewed by the federal district court to determine whether the trial and conviction violated the defendant's federal constitutional rights. Not surprisingly, habeas corpus petitions have inundated the federal courts. While most are without merit, the few petitions of substance that succeed are another cause of federal-state court friction. Rules of limitations have been imposed requiring exhaustion of state remedies and forbidding review if the state court's denial of the appeal of the criminal conviction rests on the defendant's failure to conform to state governing procedure absent a showing of cause and prejudice. (See wainwright v. sykes.)
Diversity jurisdiction brings to the federal courts issues of state law that would ordinarily be tried in the state courts. The initial justification for giving federal courts jurisdiction over such cases was concern that parochialism would put the out-of-state complainant at a disadvantage in seeking redress in state court against a resident of the forum state.
Exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction was at one time a cause of federal-state confusion if not friction. The district courts in diversity cases have been required to follow applicable state statutes, but until 1938 they were free to disregard state decisional law and decide on the basis of their own notions of what the common law was or should be. With the Supreme Court's decision in erie rail-road v. tompkins (1938) federal courts were no longer free to disregard state court decisions. Federal courts may apply their own rules as to pleading and practice but on substantive issues must function as adjuncts of the state judiciary.
erie v. tompkins has made clear that the diversity jurisdiction is a wasteful use of federal judicial resources. State court parochialism is no longer a justifiable basis for federal diversity jurisdiction. Because the federal court must apply state law, apart from federal procedural rules, the litigant is seldom better off in federal court than he would be if relegated to state courts, where increasing numbers of federal judges feel such cases belong. Congress, however, has shown little interest in divesting federal district courts of the diversity jurisdiction.
The federal district court is the place where litigation usually commences to test the constitutional validity of state or federal governmental action with national implication. These test cases usually seek injunctive relief or declaratory judgments. These are suits in equity; thus no jury is empaneled, and the district judge must determine both the facts and the law. The judge will articulate his or her findings of the facts and legal conclusions as to the constitutional validity of the governmental action being tested. The trial record and the district court's analysis are thus extremely important for appellate courts, particularly in cases of first impression.
It is the district court that decides in the first instance whether the government is violating a newspaper's first amendment rights, an accused's right against self-incrimination, or a minority citizen's right to the equal protection of the laws. Organizations such as the american civil liberties union, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Jehovah's Witnesses, environmental groups, corporations, and individuals initiate litigation in the district court to test the constitutionality of some federal, state, or local legislation or practice. (See test cases.)
Such a case was McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education (D. Ark., 1982). The American Civil Liberties Union sought to challenge an Arkansas law requiring that creationism—a biblical story of man's and the world's creation, as opposed to Darwin's evolutionary theory for explaining the genesis of mankind—be taught in the public schools. The issue was tried first in the federal district court, which framed the issue in these terms: is creationism a religious doctrine or a valid scientific theory? The court heard and weighed testimony, chiefly from experts on both sides, and held that the Arkansas statute was an unconstitutional establishment of religion.
Sometimes prior doctrine has forecast the outcome. For instance, although the separate but equal doctrine on which school segregation had been founded was not overruled until brown v. board of education (1954), earlier decisions such as sweatt v. painter (1950) and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950) pointed to that overruling. Nonetheless, the record amassed by several district courts, showing the psychological and education deprivation inflicted by segregation on black children, was crucial in enabling the Supreme Court to take the final step of overruling plessy v. ferguson (1896) and holding that segregated schools violated the right of minority school children to equal protection of the law.
Similarly, a federal district court facing a constitutional challenge to the hyde amendment, a congressional provision largely denying Medicaid funds for the cost of abortions, held hearings for about a year. The trial record contained some 400 exhibits and 5,000 pages of testimony. The judge was required to digest this mountain of testimonial and documentary evidence and prepare cohesive findings of facts and conclusions of law. (See harris v. mcrae.)
The need for so long a trial and the condensation of so voluminous a record into a coherent decision is not commonplace. However, it is not unusual for a district judge to be required to master the facts in a complex trial lasting many months, and to set forth the facts found and legal conclusions in a comprehensive fashion.
In some cases the district court, as a supplement to its own adjudicative fact-finding, must make findings as to legislative facts as well. For instance, in fullilove v. klutznick (1980) Congress had required at least ten percent of federal funds granted for local public works projects to be set aside for minority businesses. This legislation was attacked as unconstitutional racial discrimination. The district court framed the issue as the power of Congress to remedy past discrimination. The district judge relied on congressional findings that minorities had been denied access to entrepreneurial opportunities provided in building construction works financed by public funds. Based on this legislative finding and Congress's purpose to take remedial action, the district court found the set-aside to be a legitimate remedial act. The Supreme Court adopted this rationale, and upheld the quota.
At times, in a constitutional controversy, the district court, although adhering to judicial precedent requiring it to dismiss the constitutional challenge, may help to bring about a reversal of precedent by recognizing that a wrong exists which should be remedied. baker v. carr (1962) was a challenge to Tennessee's malapportioned legislature. The district court, in its opinion, carefully and sympathetically tracked the contentions of the plaintiffs that the legislators had condoned gross inequality in legislative representation and debased the voting rights of a large number of citizens. The court, however, relied on colegrove v. green (1946) and dismissed the action. On review of this order, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs' allegations had stated a case within the district court's jurisdiction. Subsequently, reynolds v. sims (1964) embodied the Supreme Court's famous one person, one vote principle, requiring legislative districts to be constructed as nearly as possible of an equal number of voters. (See reapportionment.)
Issues of such magnitude are highly charged; it is not unusual, in these controversial circumstances, for the judge who decides a case contrary to the majority's view to face public criticism and in some cases even social ostracism.
Judge Waties Waring's unpopular decision in favor of blacks in voting and school cases led to his social ostracism in Charleston, South Carolina; Judge Skelly Wright became anathema to many whites in New Orleans for the same reason, and escaped that environment through appointment to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia Circuit. Similarly, Judge William Ray Overton, who decided the creationism case adversely to local sentiments, and Judge James B. MacMillan, who ordered a complex program of school busing in Charlotte, North Carolina, were subjected to severe community criticism.
Although not so dramatic as the examples given, public criticism meets almost every district judge at one time or another for rendering an unpopular decision. Because most public controversies have a way of ending up in the federal courts, district judges must decide whether seniority systems must be modified to prevent the employment gains of minorities and women from being wiped out; whether regulations requiring physicians to report to parents abortions performed on teenagers are valid; whether the overcrowding and the rundown conditions of a prison require it to be closed; or whether permitting school authorities to provide for prayer or meditation violates the separation of church and state. The district judge normally sits alone, and does not share decision with others, as do federal appellate judges—and therefore is singularly exposed to abuse and pressure.
Life tenure helps secure the independence of the district judge in facing such issues. This independence is crucial, not only for the judge but also for a constitutional system that seeks to secure the rights of the unpopular and despised.
Robert L. Carter
Administrative Office of the United States Court. Annual Report of the Director. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Clark, D.S. 1981 Adjudication to Administration: A Statistical Analysis of Federal District Courts in the 20th Century. Southern California Law Review 55:65–152.
Hall, Kermit 1976 The Antebellum Lower Federal Judiciary, 1829–1861. Vanderbilt Law Review 29:1089–1129.
——1981 California's Lower Federal First Judicial Appointments. Hastings Law Journal 32:819–837.
Henderson, Dwight F. 1971 Courts for a New Nation. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press.
Hough, Charles M. 1934 The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. New York: Maritime Law Association.
Management Statistic for United States Courts. 1981.
Steckler, William E. 1978 Future of the Federal District Courts. Indiana Law Review 11:601–620.
Surrency, Erwin C. 1963 History of Federal Courts. Missouri Law Review 28:214–244.
Thompson, Frank, Jr. 1970 Impeachment of Federal Judges: A Historical Overview. North Carolina Law Review 49:87–121.
"United States District Courts." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. . Encyclopedia.com. (September 18, 2018). http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/united-states-district-courts
"United States District Courts." Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. . Retrieved September 18, 2018 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/united-states-district-courts