Federal Courts Outline

THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
DISTRICT COURT
Consists of District Judges and Magistrate Judges
District Judge
Magistrate Judge
ART III Judges and are appointed by President
Appointed by district judges
Confirmed by senate
 
Serve for life but can be impeached
Serve 8 year terms
Can hear any case
·1
·2
·3
·4
·5
Cannot do a felonyCan try a civil case if all parties consentDistrict judge reviews SJ orders de novo and nondispositive orders like discovery are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standardCan do a report or recommendation which District Judge can reverse or affirmRules mostly on pretrial motions or motions which do not conclude a case
The courts are subject to
1. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
2. And the local rules unless judge says otherwise.
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS IMPACTING ON THE COURTS’ POWER
ART III § 2 The judicial power shall extend to all cases
ART 4 § 4 Says that Congress has responsibility over certain things and not the court
ART 6 The Supremacy clause
Amend 7 The right to a jury trial
Amend 8 Cruel and unusual punishment
Amend 11 State Sovereign Immunity
Hodgson v. Burbank
A statute attempted to say that the courts had jurisdiction over any suit involving an alien while the const says you need an alien and a citizen
No statute can extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts beyond the limits of the constitution
Sheldon v. Sill
Congress has the power to establish the courts and as a result it can define their jurisdiction but cannot confer on any Court jurisdiction not given in the constitution or take away jurisdiction the constitution says a Court may have
Knee v. Chemical Leaman
Parties in an action cannot consent to jurisdiction where there is none
You cannot waive SMJ if it does not exist. A court either has the power to hear something or it does not
The constitution controls Congress but Congress can limit the SMJ and the parties must obey as long as the cons is not violated
OTHER LIMITS ON THE COURTS POWER
Baker v. Carr
STANDING
STANDING
a. A federal Court has no jurisdiction to hear anything other than a case or controversy of ART III.
b. Have the appellants alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy to assure that the concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of the Constitutional issues
JUSTICIABILITY A court may have subject matter jurisdiction but certain factors mean that it cannot hear the case for example the political question doctrine
c. Political Question Doctrine exists where
i. There is a textually demonstratable constitutional commitment of power to a coordinate branch of government. Eg The Guarantee Clause says that the US shall guarantee to every state a Republican form of Govt. means the Executive shall Guarantee.
ii. A lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards exist for resolving the controversy
iii. The impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination clearly better left to another branch
iv. The impossibility of a Court’s undertaking independent resolution w/out dissing coordinate branches of government
v. Unquestioning need for adherence to a political decision already made
vi. Potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question
d. Applied on a case by case basis
e. Really a separation of powers issue
Based on Article III considerations and Prudential Considerations
Craig v. Boren
Prudential requirements/Just tertii or 3rd party standing
ART III Standing
Prudential Standing
Case or controversy requirement
·2
We know it exists but to say it in a finite sentence is impossible
·3
If you do not have it then no amount of prudential considerations can get you into court
·4
Must assert own legal rights and interests
·5
Cannot rest his claim for relief on on the legal rights of 3rd parties
·6
The question even if satisfying ART III case or controversy s