Judiciary of the United States Federal Judiciary

Judiciary of the United States Federal Judiciary
💡No image available
Overview
Main courts	United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, Supreme Court of the United States
Appeals process	Appeals from district courts to regional courts of appeals, then certiorari to the Supreme Court
Constitutional basis	Article III of the U.S. Constitution
Judicial appointment	Nominations by the President with confirmation by the Senate

The judiciary of the United States federal judiciary is the system of federal courts established under Article III of the U.S. Constitution to interpret federal law and the Constitution. It is organized in a hierarchical structure that includes district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court, with additional specialized tribunals for certain categories of claims. The federal judiciary is designed to provide judicial review, resolve disputes between parties, and apply binding precedent across the nation.

Structure of the federal courts

The federal judicial power is vested in the federal courts created by Congress, primarily under Article III. The system is commonly described as a three-tier hierarchy: United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. District courts serve as trial courts that hear cases involving federal statutes, the Constitution, and diversity jurisdiction, among other grounds described in U.S. law.

Above them, the regional courts of appeals review decisions from district courts and determine whether legal error occurred. The Supreme Court acts as the court of last resort, primarily through the discretionary writ of certiorari, and its published opinions set binding precedent for lower federal courts in many areas of federal law, including constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court of the United States. This hierarchical design supports uniformity in the application of federal law, while maintaining institutional independence through life tenure and protection against salary diminution for Article III judges.

Jurisdiction and case types

Federal courts exercise jurisdiction defined by federal statutes enacted by Congress and by the Constitution. For example, cases may arise under federal question jurisdiction, diversity jurisdiction, or under particular specialized federal statutes. Courts also determine matters such as standing, justiciability, and the scope of remedial authority before reaching merits questions.

Many controversies involve constitutional issues, including questions about federal power and individual rights. In such cases, federal courts may apply doctrines developed through precedent, such as those governing judicial review and constitutional interpretation, and they may evaluate the constitutionality of statutes under principles associated with Judicial review in the United States. Jurisdictional requirements and procedural limits help ensure that federal courts adjudicate actual “cases” and “controversies,” a concept often traced to the federal courts’ constitutional role and limitations.

Appointment, tenure, and judicial independence

Article III judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. After confirmation, judges generally hold office during good behavior, which is protected by constitutional rules on removal and salary. This framework is intended to support Judicial independence by reducing political pressures that might otherwise affect decision-making.

The federal judiciary’s independence is also reflected in longstanding institutional practices and norms, including internal rules governing ethics and adjudication. While Congress has authority to create lower courts and regulate some procedural aspects through statutes, it cannot generally remove or undermine the core protections afforded to Article III judges in a manner inconsistent with constitutional guarantees. The independence of the judiciary, combined with the appellate process, is central to the legitimacy of federal adjudication, and is frequently discussed in connection with the broader constitutional system of separation of powers, often associated with Separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

Appellate review and precedent

When a case is appealed, the record from the trial court and the relevant legal arguments are reviewed under established standards. Courts of appeals typically review legal questions de novo, while factual findings may be reviewed under more deferential standards depending on the issue type. The courts of appeals issue opinions that establish circuit-level precedent, guiding district courts within their circuits.

The Supreme Court’s role differs because it selects a subset of cases for review and issues national precedents. A Supreme Court decision can clarify, modify, or overrule earlier interpretations, affecting doctrine across circuits. This process illustrates how binding precedent evolves through adjudication, with earlier cases informing later ones under doctrines such as stare decisis, a concept often associated with Stare decisis. Legal developments in federal administrative and constitutional law also commonly reach the Article III courts after proceedings under federal statutes and regulations.

Specialized federal tribunals and administrative adjudication

In addition to the Article III courts, the federal judicial system includes specialized bodies created to adjudicate particular claims or to review certain agency actions. Some disputes are heard in administrative processes before they may be reviewed by courts, including claims involving benefits, taxation, or claims against the federal government.

For example, disputes against the federal government may proceed under statutory waivers of sovereign immunity and may be heard in specialized courts or tribunals before appellate review. Courts may review agency decisions under standards of administrative law, including doctrines codified and interpreted in the Administrative Procedure Act. Judicial review of agency action often requires courts to assess whether agency decisions are authorized by statute and supported by substantial evidence or otherwise comply with governing legal standards.