Article 3, Section 1 — Historical Background On Establishment Of Article Iii Courts

| next

Article III, 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 Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Before the Founding, each state had its own system of courts, while the Articles of Confederation did not provide for an independent Federal Judiciary. At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates agreed early on to depart from existing practice and establish an independent federal Judicial Branch including a Supreme Court. ( “That there should be a national judiciary was readily accepted by all.” ). ") The Framers generally accepted that state courts would play a significant role in interpreting and applying federal law. [hereinafter, Convention Records]. For example, the Convention considered proposals that would require federal questions to be decided first in state court, but with a right of appeal to federal courts. See id. at 243, 424. Likewise, during the debate over ratification, Alexander Hamilton wrote that “the State courts will RETAIN the jurisdiction they now have, unless it appears to be taken away in one of the enumerated modes. . . . [Thus,] the State courts would have a concurrent jurisdiction in all cases arising under the laws of the Union, where it was not expressly prohibited.” The Federalist No. 83 (Alexander Hamilton). For additional discussion of the relationship between federal and state courts, see . ") But, in light of concerns about whether state courts would apply federal law correctly, uniformly, and without bias, ( “State judges, holding their offices during pleasure, or from year to year, will be too little independent to be relied upon for an inflexible execution of the national laws.” ); 1 Convention Records, supra note 3, at 124 (statement of Madison expressing concern about “the local prejudices of an undirected jury” ); The Federalist No. 80 (Alexander Hamilton) ( “[T]he most discerning cannot foresee how far the prevalency of a local spirit may be found to disqualify the local tribunals for the jurisdiction of national causes.” ); id. ( “The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.” ). ") the Framers provided for a federal Supreme Court with the power to review state judicial decisions involving issues of federal statutory or constitutional law.. Cf. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Collected Legal Papers 295–96 (1921) ( “I do not think the United States would come to an end if we lost our power to declare an Act of Congress void. I do think the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as the laws of the several States.” ). ")

However, the Framers debated whether the Constitution should also provide for the existence of lower federal courts.. ") James Madison’s proposal for the new government, known as the Virginia Plan, provided for a “National Judiciary [to] be established to consist of one or more supreme tribunals, and of inferior tribunals to be chosen by the National Legislature.” In the Committee of the Whole, the proposal to establish a national Judiciary was adopted unanimously. A clause providing that the Judicial Branch would “consist of One supreme tribunal, and of one or more inferior tribunals” was initially agreed to, but later reconsidered. Critics of the provision argued that state courts could adequately adjudicate all necessary matters in the first instance, while appellate review the supreme tribunal would protect national interests and assure uniformity, and the provision for inferior tribunals was ultimately stricken out.

Madison and James Wilson then moved to authorize Congress to “appoint inferior tribunals.” That proposal, sometimes called the Madisonian Compromise,. ") carried the implication that Congress could, in its discretion, either designate the state courts to hear federal cases or create federal courts. Over the course of the Convention, the phrasing of the provision evolved into its present form, which vests federal judicial power in the “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Beyond that provision, the Constitution imposes few specific requirements related to the organization of the federal Judiciary.

The first Congress exercised its discretion to create lower federal courts promptly in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the first legislation related to the Federal Judiciary. Since that time, the Federal Judiciary has always consisted of one Supreme Court and multiple inferior federal courts, though Congress has periodically enacted legislation to change the size of the Supreme Court and the size and structure of the lower courts.(https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/historical-background-on-establishment-of-article-iii-courts#fn17art3 " See, e.g., Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, § 1, 1 Stat. 73; Judiciary Act of 1801, ch. 4, § 3, 2 Stat. 89; Act of Mar. 8, 1802, ch. 8, § 1, 2 Stat. 132; Act of Feb. 24, 1807, ch. 16, § 5, 2 Stat. 420; Act of Mar. 3, 1837, ch. 34, § 1, 5 Stat. …