Article Three of the
United States Constitution
establishes the
judicial branch of
the
federal
government.
The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of
the United States
along with lower federal courts established
pursuant to legislation by Congress.
Section 1: Federal courts
Section 1 vests the judicial power in federal courts, requires a
supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior
tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of
judges.
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be
vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts,
shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated
Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Number of courts
Section 1 explicitly requires "one" Supreme Court, but does not fix
the number of justices that must be appointed to it. The number of
justices has been fixed by statute, and at present the number is
nine: one chief justice and eight associate justices. (Article I of
the constitution also provides for some courts. That article is
discussed herein for completeness.)
Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into the separate panels have
been made, but all have failed. Since all such proposals have
failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the
constitutionality of such a division.
However, Chief Justice
Charles
Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to
authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as
separate courts."
The Supreme Court is the only
federal court that is required
explicitly by the Constitution. During the
Constitutional Convention, a
proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal
court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate
jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision
that we have today. Under this provision, the Congress may create
inferior courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I,
Section 8. The
Article III courts,
which are also known as "constitutional courts," were first created
by the
Judiciary Act of 1789.
Article I
courts, which are also known as "legislative courts," consist of
regulatory agencies, such as the
United States Tax Court. Article III
courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of
regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts.
However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come
before Article I courts. In the case of
Murray's Lessee v.
Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. (1856), the Supreme
Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in
equity, or admiralty" inherently involves judicial determination
and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as
bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial
determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts.
Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I
courts rather than Article III courts.
Tenure
The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices
during good Behavior" (unless appointed during a Senate recess).
The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may
serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or
retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and
conviction by congressional vote;
this
has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges,
Mark W. Delahay,
George
W. English, and
Samuel B. Kent
resigned rather than go through the impeachment process.
Salaries
The compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be
increased, during their continuance in office. The Constitution is
silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished.
The
Judiciary Act of 1801
increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President
John Adams to appoint a number of
Federalist judges before
Thomas
Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the
Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision
for the judges of those courts. The power to abolish a court was
next used in 1913, when the Congress abolished the
Commerce Court. In that case,
however, Congress transferred the judges of the Commerce Court to
the Circuit Courts.
Section 2: Federal jurisdiction and trial by jury
Section 2 specifies the subject-matter jurisdiction of the federal
courts and requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except
impeachment cases.
Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law
and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be
a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a
State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different
States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under
Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and
Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme
Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,
with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.
Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by
Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said
Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any
State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress
may by Law have directed.
Subject-matter jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and not courts
of general jurisdiction. Courts of limited jurisdiction can hear
and decide cases that involve only certain subject matter. This
limited
subject-matter
jurisdiction extends to:
- Federal question
jurisdiction: cases arising under the Constitution, federal
laws, and treaties
- Ambassador jurisdiction: cases involving ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls
- Admiralty jurisdiction: cases
involving navigable waters
- Federal party jurisdiction: cases in which the United States is
a party
- State jurisdiction: cases between two or more states
- Diversity jurisdiction:
cases between citizens of different states
- Land grants jurisdiction: cases between citizens of the same
state claiming land under the grants of different states
- Alienage jurisdiction: cases between
- a state and a foreign state;
- citizens of a state and a foreign state;
- citizens of a state and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state; or
- a state and citizens of another state, or citizens or subjects
of a foreign state, where the
state is the initial plaintiff.
Article Three is not self-executing concerning the subject-matter
over which federal courts can have jurisdiction. The Congress
decides, from the subject-matter specified in Article Three, what
jurisdiction the federal courts will have.
Eleventh Amendment and State Sovereign Immunity
In
Chisholm v.
Georgia, 2 U.S. (2
Dall.) 419 (1793), the Supreme Court held that states were not
immune from lawsuits by individuals due to the Supreme Court's
Article III jurisdiction over them. Effectively reversing this
judgment, the
Eleventh
Amendment was passed to prevent a state from being sued in a
federal court.
Cases and controversies
Only actual
cases and
controversies may be heard by the federal courts; the judicial
power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are
precluded because of problems with
standing,
mootness,
or
ripeness. Generally, a case or
controversy requires the presence of adverse parties. In
Muskrat v.
United States, ,
the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a
statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suits against
the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law
allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid
from the U.S. Treasury. The Supreme Court maintained that, though
the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an
actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test
the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation, and the
Court's ruling would be nothing more than an
advisory opinion; therefore, it dismissed
the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy."
Original and appellate jurisdiction
Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has
original jurisdiction in cases
affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and controversies in
which a state is a party. In other cases, the Supreme Court has
only
appellate jurisdiction,
which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not,
however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in
Marbury v. Madison, (the same decision in which
the principle of
judicial review
was established).
Marbury established that Congress can
neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is
subject to such regulation and exceptions "as the Congress shall
make." This power of Congress has rarely been exercised except to
refine the procedures for obtaining Court review of lower court
decisions; over the years the trend has been for Congress to grant
the Court maximum discretion in deciding whether to accept or
reject a case.
Judicial review
No part of the Constitution expressly authorizes judicial review,
but the Framers did
contemplate the idea.
Alexander Hamilton wrote,
Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could
determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.
Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan
set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in
November, the newly elected officers did not take power until
March. The
Federalist Party had
lost the elections, and, in the words of President
Thomas Jefferson, "retired into the
judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the
elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships,
which were filled by President
John
Adams. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary
of State
John Marshall had neglected
to deliver commissions to the appointees. When
James Madison took over as Secretary of State,
several commissions remained undelivered. Under the
Judiciary Act of 1789, appointees,
including
William Marbury,
petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a
writ of mandamus, which in English law had been
used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial
duties.
Marbury v. Madison posed a difficult problem for
the Supreme Court, which was incidentally led by Chief Justice John
Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the
commissions as Secretary of State. If Marshall's Court commanded
Madison to deliver the commissions, he would merely ignore the
order, thereby indicating the weakness of the Court. Similarly, if
the Court denied Marbury's request, it would be perceived as weak.
In making his ruling, Chief Justice Marshall declared that Marbury
was indeed entitled to his commission. He continued, however, that
the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, as it purported to
grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not
involving states or ambassadors, thereby establishing that the
courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress
or the executive branch.
Trial by jury
Section 2 provides that the trial of crimes, except impeachment
cases, must be by jury. The trial must be held in the state where
the crime was committed, or, if it was not committed in any
particular state, in such a place as should have been previously
set forth by the Congress.
The
Sixth
Amendment further provides that the trial must be held not only
in the state, but also in the district where the crime was
committed, which district should have been previously set forth by
the Congress, and that the jury must be impartial and chosen from
that state and district.
Section 3: Treason
Section 3 defines
treason and its
punishment.
Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only
in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort.
No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession
in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason,
but no
Attainder of Treason shall work
Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the
Person attainted.
The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying
War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies,
giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained
with the English law, whereby a variety of crimes, including
conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were
punishable as treason. In
Ex Parte
Bollman (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must
be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to
constitute a levying of war".
Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S.
Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason. Of
the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and
adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving
encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of
counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal
family of the sort, which could call into question the parentage of
successors. One important distinction is that the encompassing the
death species of treason was most used by the English government to
silence political opposition and was expressly excluded by the
authors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and
he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason
against the Patriot cause.
Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on
the same
overt act, or a confession by the
accused
in open court, to convict for
treason. This rule was derived from an older British law, the
Treason Act 1695. In
Cramer v. United States, the Supreme
Court ruled that "every act, movement, deed, and word of the
defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the
testimony of two witnesses." In
Haupt v. United
States, however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses
are not required to prove intent; nor are two witnesses required to
prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses,
according to the decision, are required to prove only that the
overt act occurred (
eyewitness and
federal agents investigating the crime, for
example).
Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or
Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The
descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they
were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of
their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property
of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of
the person convicted.
References
Bibliography
- Irons, Peter. (1999). A People's
History of the Supreme Court. New York: Penguin.
External links
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search