Page 1 of 20

Introduction The federal courts are the third branch of the government of the United States of

America, and may be the least understood of the three branches. Most Americans are familiar with the White House and the Congress, but are less familiar with the Supreme Court and the many lower federal courts nationwide. While courts occasionally make news with landmark rulings or through decisions in interesting cases, they tend to be less visible than other government entities.

Most Americans have heard the President make a speech on television or watched the Congress debate on C-SPAN. In contrast, the proceedings of federal courts are not televised, and most people have not heard an oral argument or testimony before a federal court, at least outside of jury duty. Although the federal courts do not get the publicity that the other two branches of government do, their decisions have a profound impact on the lives of all Americans.

The federal court system is created in the U.S. Constitution. This segment will discuss the Constitutional basis for the federal courts. It will also discuss how the federal courts operate in the Constitutional system of "checks and balances" with the executive and legislative branches of government.

Constitutional Issues

The federal courts are authorized by Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Article III provides that:

The judical power of the United States is vested in the federal court system.

The highest court in the federal court system is the Supreme Court.

Congress may create other "inferior" courts that are below the Supreme Court.

Page 2 of 20

Supreme Court Justices and other federal judges hold lifetime appointments, unless removed from office.

Congress may not decrease the pay of federal judges or Supreme Court justices while they are in office.

The Courts and the Executive Branch

The main check that the Executive Branch has on the federal courts is the power of appointment. Article II of the Constitution provides that federal judges are appointed by the President, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Presidents generally appoint federal judges who share their political beliefs and philosophy. Because federal judges are appointed for life, the power of appointment gives a President some influence over the direction of the court system even after his term of office ends.

On at least one occasion, a President has sought to place a check on the federal courts by widening his appointment authority. In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed new legislation that would allow the President to appoint an additional Justice to the Supreme Court when a Justice passed the age of seventy without retiring. If passed, this legislation would have allowed the President to appoint six new Justices to the Court. Roosevelt's proposal was widely derided as "court packing" and was never implemented.

The main Constitutional check that the federal courts have on the executive branch is through the process of impeachment, which provides for the removal of office for an elected or appointed official. Article I of the Constitution provides that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the Senate when the President is impeached. Chief Justice Salmon Chase presided over the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist presided over the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999.

The courts may also rule certain actions of the president illegal or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has also heard many landmark cases involving the Presidency. In the 1974 case of United States v. Nixon, the Court found that Presidential claims of privilege do not bar the release of information under a subpoena issued by a special prosecutor in a criminal case. In the 1997 case of Clinton v. Jones, the Court found that the President was not immune from a civil case brought against him in his private capacity. In the

Page 3 of 20

2000 case of Bush v. Gore, the Court settled the disputed 2000 Presidential election by overturning a Florida Supreme Court decision calling for a partial recount.

The Courts and the Legislative Branch

The main check that the federal courts have over the legislative branch is the process of judicial review. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall authored an opinion ruling that a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional. The Marbury ruling was the first time that the Supreme Court declared that a statute passed by Congress was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court has used its power of judicial review in a variety of situations. After the Marbury decision, the next time the Court found a law unconstitutional was in the controversial Dred Scott decision, where the Court found that the Missouri Compromise legislation was unconstitutional. The Court can also rule that a federal law is constitutional. For example, in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court upheld the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that discrimination against African-American hotel guests affected interstate commerce.

Congress can also pass legislation or constitutional amendments that act to overturn specific Supreme Court decisions. For example, in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Department of Transportation v. Paralyzed Veterans of America that a federal civil rights law protecting the rights of people with disabilities did not apply to the airline industry. In response to this decision, Congress passed a new law, the Air Carrier Access Act. The new law was designed to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities in air travel, thereby overturning the Court's decision.

Page 4 of 20

Structure of the Federal Courts

Explaining the Structure

The federal courts have a three-part structure, as explained in the following diagram:

As the diagram shows, the structure of the federal courts is roughly pyramidal. At the top of the pyramid is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. The Supreme Court is often called "the highest court in the land" because it hears appeals from state courts as well as federal courts. The Supreme Court has nine justices and begins its term on the first Monday in October of each year.

Page 5 of 20

The Supreme Court hears most cases on appeal. Litigants (People who have a case) wishing to appeal their cases from a state supreme court or from a federal Court of Appeals must file for a "writ of certiorari". If four of the nine Justices agree to issue a writ, the Court will hear the case. The Court also has limited "original jurisdiction" in some cases.

The Federal Courts of Appeal are the middle part of the pyramid. The Courts of Appeal are divided into twelve different regions, often known as "circuits". These courts are often known as "circuit courts". Eleven of the twelve circuit courts handle cases from different states -- for example, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta handles cases from Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The twelfth circuit court is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and is located in Washington. Additionally, there is also a United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which hears certain specialized cases.

The Federal District Courts are the lowest part of the pyramid. There are 94 judicial districts across the country, including judicial districts in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and Guam.

Navigating the Structure

Most cases start at the district court level. Once a district court judge issues a ruling, or a jury issues a verdict, a case can proceed to the circuit court level, or even all the way up to the Supreme Court. However, cases can move down the structure as well. If a higher court overturns a decision of a lower court, the higher court will usually remand the case to a lower court. A complex case may go back and forth among the different levels one or more times.

The following flow chart describes how an individual case moves between the different levels of the court system:

Page 6 of 20

For example, a case would begin at the district court level. After the district court issued its opinion, a party could appeal to the circuit court level. The appeal would then be heard by a three-judge panel of the membership of the circuit court.

After the circuit court issued its decision on the appeal, the case could go in a number of directions. The circuit court could remand the case back to the district court for further consideration. One of the parties could request a rehearing of the case by the circuit court as a whole -- what is referred to as an "en banc" panel of all the judges appointed to that circuit court. One of the parties could also appeal directly to the Supreme Court by requesting certiorari.

If four Supreme Court justices (“Rule of Four”) chose to issue a writ of certiorari, the Court would then issue a decision on the case. The Court could then remand the case back to either the district court or the circuit court, depending on its decision.

Page 7 of 20

Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts

What is jurisdiction?

Jurisdiction is a term that refers to whether a court has the power to hear a given case. Jurisdiction is important because it limits the power of a court to hear certain cases. If courts did not exercise appropriate jurisdiction, every court could conceivably hear every case brought to them, which would lead to confusing and contradictory results.

The concept of jurisdiction is a little easier to understand in state courts. Every state in the United States has its own court system to hear cases arising from that state. Suppose that a citizen of Mississippi sued a citizen of Alabama in a case involving a real estate transaction that took place in Georgia. The case could be brought in state court in Mississippi, or Alabama, because of where the parties live, or in Georgia, because of where the property at issue is located. However, such a case could not be brought in the state of Alaska, because none of the parties live there, and the state of Alaska has no attachment to the case at all. The Alaska court would dismiss any claims in this example because it would not have the appropriate jurisdiction.

A federal court, on the other hand, has more extensive jurisdiction than a state court. While the jurisdiction of state courts are limited by their boundaries, the federal court system covers the entire nation. For example, the Supreme Court can hear cases from any state. Federal Courts of Appeal can hear cases from any of the states in their region (except for the D.C. Circuit, which only hears cases from the District of Columbia). The federal courts also have jurisdiction on some cases where one party is outside of the United States of America.

Another form of jurisdiction is what is known as "subject matter jurisdiction" --whether a given federal court can rule on the subject matter of the case in question. For example, no federal court has "subject matter jurisdiction" to probate a will (decide who gets what after somebody dies). The probate process has, traditionally, always been left up to the individual state courts. In contrast, cases involving patents (Someone claiming ownership of an invention) are always in the "subject matter jurisdiction" of federal courts. Because the Constitution gives Congress the specific power to regulate the patent system, state courts do not have the appropriate jurisdiction to hear patent cases. Federal courts also have "exclusive" subject matter

Page 8 of 20

jurisdiction over copyright cases, admiralty cases, lawsuits involving the military, immigration laws, and bankruptcy proceedings.

There are three main types of "subject matter jurisdiction" in the federal court system - "federal question jurisdiction", "diversity jurisdiction", and "supplemental jurisdiction". This section of the module will discuss each of these in detail.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

Federal courts are generally said to have "federal question" jurisdiction, which means that federal courts will hear cases that involve issues touching on the Constitution or other federal laws. The source of "federal question" jurisdiction can be found in the Constitution. Article III states that 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."

For example, a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over rent would normally not be a "federal question", since relationships between landlords and tenants come under state law, rather than federal law. However, the tenant could argue that she was being discriminated against on the basis of race. A federal law, the Fair Housing Act, protects the rights of tenants against racial discrimination. If the tenant claims that the landlord is violating the Fair Housing Act in a discriminatory fashion, she could bring her case in federal court because it raises a "federal question".

Diversity Jurisdiction

Federal law also authorizes federal courts to hear cases where the opposing parties are citizens of different states. This is known as "diversity jurisdiction", because the plaintiff and the defendant have different, or diverse, state citizenships. "Diversity jurisdiction" enables a federal court to hear cases where there is not a federal question. In diversity cases, the federal court provides a fair forum where citizens of different states can have their cases heard.

The federal law governing diversity jurisdiction states that a case must have an "amount-in-controversy" of $75,000 or more before a federal court can hear a case. Additionally, there are exceptions to diversity jurisdiction for some cases, including probate cases and family law cases, which are almost always handled in state courts.

For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete" diversity between the parties. For example, if a citizen of Georgia filed a lawsuit in federal court suing three defendants -- a citizen of Mississippi, a citizen of Alabama, and a citizen in Georgia -- the federal court would not have jurisdiction. Because there

Page 9 of 20

would be citizens of Georgia on both sides of the lawsuit, there would not be complete diversity between the plaintiff and all of the defendants.

Supplemental Jurisdiction

In "supplemental jurisdiction", a federal court can hear a claim that would normally come under the jurisdiction of a state court if it is related to a claim already before that court. Supplementary jurisdiction -- sometimes called "ancillary jurisdiction" or "pendent jurisdiction" -- is a common-law device that allows a court to resolve all claims between opposing parties in one forum. Unlike other forms of jurisdiction, supplementary jurisdiction is discretionary -- a court can choose whether or not to exercise it in a given case.

For example, suppose that a tenant sued a landlord in federal court alleging she was discriminated against in violation of the Fair Housing Act. As stated above, that lawsuit would come under the "federal question" jurisdiction. But suppose that the tenant also complained that the landlord damaged her car by negligently breaking a window. This claim would not normally come under the jurisdiction of a federal court. However, a federal court could opt to exercise its "supplemental jurisdiction" and hear this claim along with the Fair Housing Act claim.

Page 10 of 20

The following table will help distinguish between the three types of jurisdiction:

Types of Jurisdiction

Possible Basis for

Jurisdiction

Federal Question

Diversity Supplemental

Source of jurisdiction

Constitution Federal

Law Common Law

Minimum amount in controversy

None $75,000 None

Does the court have the discretion to deny jurisdiction, if proper?

No No Yes

Must parties be from different states?

No Yes

No, if the underlying case presents a federal question

In addition to these sources, the Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" over a number of very specific cases. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court will be discussed in the section on the Supreme Court.

Page 11 of 20

Federal District Courts Federal district courts are the workhorses of the federal judiciary. Just about every

civil or criminal case heard in the federal courts starts at the district court level. District court judges review petitions, hear motions, hold trials, issue injunctions, and keep the wheels of justice spinning.

Federal district courts serve the 94 federal judicial districts. Each state has at least one judicial district. The three states with the largest population -- California, New York, and Texas -- have four judicial districts apiece. The District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands each make up a judicial district, and have a district court.

Role of the District Court

District courts are "trial" courts, meaning that district court judges have the authority to try cases. The Supreme Court and the circuit courts are appellate courts, meaning that they have the authority to hear appeals of decisions by trial court judges. District court judges can conduct jury trials in criminal or civil proceedings. In some instances, district court judges can decide cases without a jury -- a procedure known as a "bench trial".

The role of federal judges at the trial court level is to decide questions of law. Almost every case filed in a federal court poses questions of law and questions of fact. For example, in a criminal trial, there are generally issues regarding such questions as the admissibility of certain kinds of evidence, the scope of a search warrant, or the legality of an arrest. These are questions of law for a trial judge to decide. On the other hand, there are also questions relating to whether the defendant actually committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. These are questions of fact. In federal courts, questions of fact are decided by a jury, or by the judge in a bench trial.

Workload of the District Courts

However, most cases never get that far. The overwhelming majority of cases before the federal courts at the district court level are decided before the case ever goes to trial. According to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, the federal district courts handled over 250,000 civil cases in fiscal year 2003. However, only 4,206 cases, or 1.7 percent, were decided through the trial process. Only 2,674 cases went to a jury, with 1,532 cases heard as bench trials. About 40% of the cases that went to a jury trial involved alleged civil rights violations.

Page 12 of 20

The following bar chart illustrates the number of civil and criminal cases filed in federal court in 2002 and 2003:

Page 13 of 20

Federal Courts of Appeal Why Circuit Courts?

The twelve United States Courts of Appeal are traditionally known as "circuit courts". After the Supreme Court was formed, it was expected that Supreme Court justices would travel around the country twice a year visiting a "circuit" of courts in different states. Unfortunately, travel was a slow and difficult process in the late 18th century, and the Justices found it difficult to leave Washington on a regular basis. Although Congress passed several laws creating new courts, Supreme Court justices continued to ride the circuit until 1891, when Congress created the Circuit Courts of Appeal. In 1948, the official name was changed to United States Courts of Appeal.

The concept of a judicial "circuit" still lives on today. Each of the twelve Courts of Appeal covers its own individual circuit. For example, the United States Court of Appeal for the Eleventh Circuit handles cases from the states of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The judges of the Eleventh Circuit hear most cases in the court's principal office in Atlanta, Georgia. However, in keeping with the tradition of the circuit court system, the Eleventh Circuit hears cases occasionally in Jacksonville, Florida, Miami, Florida, and Montgomery, Alabama.

Circuit Court Structure

This map shows the boundaries of the twelve circuit courts. Eleven circuit courts handle more than one state. The twelfth circuit court is the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which meets in Washington, D.C. The map is accompanied by alternative text -- available through a mouse-over for most users -- which shows the postal abbreviations for each state in each circuit, as well as the city where the circuit court is headquartered.

Page 14 of 20

Each circuit has a limited number of judgeships, set by Congress. The First Circuit,

made up of the eastern New England states, has the fewest, with six circuit judges. The Ninth Circuit, consisting of nine Western states, has the most, 28 circuit judges.

Role of the Circuit Courts

The circuit courts are intermediate appellate courts. The circuit courts do not handle jury trials. They only handle cases where a party argues that a district court judge made an error in handling their case. For example, if a jury verdict goes against a party, the party cannot directly appeal the verdict, because a jury verdict is final. However, a party may base their appeal on a perceived error by the judge -- in other words, the losing party may argue that the judge approved improper jury instructions, or ruled that a vital piece of evidence was inadmissible. Circuit courts review the work of district court judges -- applying one of several "standards of review" -- and issue decisions based on whether or not the lower court's decision was right or not.

Page 15 of 20

In order to decide the merits of an appeal, circuit court judges rely on documents called "briefs". Each party to an appeal submits a brief to the court which outlines the legal arguments at issue. The circuit court judges review the briefs. In some cases, the judges will issue a decision based on their review of the briefs. In other cases, the judges will schedule an "oral argument" session, where the attorneys for the parties argue the cases before the judges, and give the judges the opportunity to ask questions about their arguments.

Initially, every case at the circuit court level is handled by a panel of three judges. (Occasionally, a retired judge on "senior status" or a district court judge will participate on a panel.) Most decisions are issued by these panels. However, a party may ask for a rehearing by a panel consisting of all the circuit court judges. This sort of panel is known as an en banc panel.

Splits Among Circuit Courts

Frequently, situations will come up where one circuit court panel rules differently from another panel in another circuit on the same issue. Federal judges will generally rule the way that a previous court ruled on the same issue, following a doctrine known asstare decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by a decision". However, the judges in one circuit are not bound by rulings in another circuit. While an opinion written by a circuit court may be helpful or instructive, judges in a different circuit may choose to adopt a different approach in its opinion.

Circuit courts also tend to split because of geographical, political, or ideological differences. Different circuit courts have, over the years, developed individual reputations. Many commenters have argued that the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Virginia, tends to be more conservative than other circuit courts. Other commenters have argued that the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco, California, tends to be more liberal than other circuit courts.

Splits among circuits are important because they usually signal future Supreme Court decisions. Often, the Supreme Court will move to resolve a split among the circuits, taking a case that will resolve, once and for all, the point of contention.

Page 16 of 20

The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. It is the only court specifically established in the Constitution. The Supreme Court consists of a Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices. The annual term of the Supreme Court runs from the first Monday in October to early summer, usually ending in late June or early July.

Because the Supreme Court was the first court established in the federal system, it has the most significant history of any federal court, as well as some of the richest traditions. The Supreme Court's decisions in landmark cases such as Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott v. Sanford, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka have shaped America's history and ideals.

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

There are three separate routes that cases follow to reach the Supreme Court. The first, and least common, is a case under the Court's "original jurisdiction". "Original jurisdiction" means that the Supreme Court hears the case directly, without the case going through an intermediate stage. The original jurisdiction is set forth in the United States Code. The Supreme Court has original and exclusive jurisdiction to hear disputes between different states -- meaning that no other federal court can hear such a dispute. An example of such a case is the 1998 case of State of New Jersey v. State of New York. In this case, the two states litigated the question of which state had jurisdiction over Ellis Island. "Original jurisdiction" cases are rare, with the Court hearing one or two cases each term.

The most common way for a case to reach the Supreme Court is on appeal from a circuit court. A party seeking to appeal a decision of a circuit court can file a petition to the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. "Certiorari" is a Latin word meaning "to inform", in the sense that the petition informs the Court of the request for review.

Unlike all other federal courts, the Supreme Court has discretion to decide which cases it will hear. The Supreme Court gets thousands of petitions for certiorari, but only issues a writ in a fraction of cases. The Court will only issue a writ if four of the nine Justices vote to do so. Justices usually take the importance of a given case and the need to issue a final decision before deciding to grant certiorari. If four Justices do not agree to grant certiorari, the petition is denied. If a case is "denied cert", the decision of the lower court is final.

Page 17 of 20

The third way in which a case can reach the Supreme Court is through an appeal from a state supreme court. Each state has its own supreme court that is the final authority on state law. (However, each state does not always call its highest court the "Supreme Court"; in New York, for example, the highest court is the Court of Appeals.) The Supreme Court will generally not challenge a state court's ruling on an issue of state law. However, the Court will grant certiorari in cases where the state court's ruling deals with Constitutional issues.

Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Every session of the Supreme Court starts with the words, "Oyez, Oyez, Oyez", which signals those attending the proceedings to pay attention. The official crier continues; "All persons having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States, are admonished to draw near and give their attention, for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and this Honorable Court!" Once that ritual has been completed, the Court returns to its public business. When the Supreme Court is in session, Justices generally hear oral arguments.

Oral arguments provide a means for lawyers representing clients before the Supreme Court to advocate their case directly to the Justices. After the Justices grant certiorari, the next step in the process is for the lawyers for both parties to submit briefs to the Court that argue their case. Additionally, parties that are not involved in the case but have an interest in the Court's decision may submit amicus, or friend-of-the-court briefs to support their views. Once this is completed, the Justices schedule the case for oral argument.

At oral argument, the lawyer for each side has a half-hour to present his case before the nine Justices. Oral arguments are open to the media and the public, and while they are not televised, they are often recorded. The Court strictly enforces time limits, which means that the lawyers representing the parties must sharpen their arguments in order to present them effectively. Frequently, the Justices will interrupt the lawyers to ask questions.

Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court, writing in The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process, cited several reasons why oral argument is vital to a court's deliberation. First, oral argument allows members of the public to hear judicial proceedings, and gives the media the opportunity to report on the case. Second, oral argument allows Justices to ask hypothetical questions in order to gauge what the effect of a decision might be in practice. Third, oral argument can also help identify issues that were not properly briefed by the parties. Finally, the give-and-take between the lawyers and the Justices serves to magnify the strengths and weaknesses of each side's arguments, and helps Justices resolve their doubts and concerns about the case. 1

Page 18 of 20

Supreme Court Opinions

After oral argument is completed, the Justices meet in closed session to discuss the case. Justices work with their law clerks to draft the opinions that will be the Court's final decision about the case. Opinions are lengthy, carefully-written, and extensively footnoted documents that serve as a record of the Court's decision on each case.

There are four main types of opinions. The most important type is the majority opinion. The majority opinion is, as the name suggests, the opinion of the majority of judges hearing the case. In most cases, a majority opinion requires five Justices, unless one or more Justices have recused themselves (decided not to rule due to a conflict of interest) from a given decision. The majority opinion is important because it defines the precedent that all future courts hearing a similar case should follow.

Majority opinions are sometimes accompanied by concurring opinions. Concurring opinions are written by individual Justices in the majority. These opinions agree with the majority opinion, but may stress a different point of law. Sometimes, concurring opinions will agree with the result reached by the majority, but for a different reason altogether.

Opinions written by justices not in the majority are known as dissenting opinions. Dissenting opinions are important because they provide insight into how the Court reached its decision. In many instances, the Court has adopted the opinion of a dissenting Justice years later in reviewing an issue. Sometimes, an opinion may be both a dissenting and concurring opinion, with a Justice agreeing with the majority on one issue but not on another.

The fourth, and least common, opinion is the per curiam opinion, a Latin term meaning "by the court". A per curiam opinion is a majority opinion delivered by the Court as a whole, with no individual Justice taking authorship.

Page 19 of 20

Other Federal Courts The federal court system also includes several courts with specialized jurisdiction.

These courts handle cases in certain areas requiring specific legal expertise.

Federal courts fall into one of two broad classifications, depending on the source of their authority. Article III of the Constitution, as explained in the Introduction, provides that Congress shall create the Supreme Courts and inferior federal courts. The federal courts discussed so far in this module are known as "Article III" courts. However, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress broad power to create "tribunals" inferior to the Supreme Court. The so-called "Article I" courts are not part of the structure of the federal courts, but serve important roles in the federal government. Unlike other federal judges, judges in "Article I" courts are not appointed for life.

Other Article III Courts

The federal bankruptcy courts handle claims for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is the process by which a debtor can establish a plan to resolve debts. A bankruptcy plan allows some debts to be discharged, releasing debtors from personal responsibility for the debts and stopping creditors from collecting on the debts. The process also liquidates some of the debtor's assets and distributes them amongst his creditors. Because bankruptcy is strictly a federal issue, it is handled exclusively by the federal bankruptcy courts, with bankruptcy judges who are familiar with the law in this area.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is a specialized circuit court with national jurisdiction. The Federal Circuit hears appeals on most patent issues. It also serves as an appellate court for many of the Article I courts, including the Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Court of Federal Claims.

Article I Courts

The United States Tax Court handles cases involving the federal tax system. The Tax Court hears cases where taxpayers dispute the amount of income tax paid, as well as the tax collection process. Nineteen judges, appointed by the President, serve on the Tax Court. The Tax Court is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The United States Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over cases involving the international trade laws. Nine judges sit on this court, which has a national jurisdiction. The Court of International Trade is headquartered in New York City.

Page 20 of 20

The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims handles appeals from veterans from the Board of Veterans' Appeals, which is an administrative court within the Department of Veterans' Affairs. This court largely hears cases involving benefits, such as disability benefits and survivor's benefits.

The United States Court of Federal Claims hears cases involving claims for money damages against the Federal government. This court hears cases involving bids on federal contracts, tax refunds, civil service and military pay disputes, copyright infringement claims, and claims against Indian tribes. Sixteen judges serve on this court, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has worldwide jurisdiction over appeals of military court-martial cases under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Additionally, many federal agencies have "administrative law judges" to handle appeals from citizens. The Social Security Administration, for example, has a complex process by which individuals who are denied benefits can appeal these decisions to an administrative law judge, and then to an appeals council. Once a final decision is made by the SSA's administrative law judges, an applicant can appeal that decision to a federal district court.