Also known as: Art. 3 · Article III · Art. III · U.S. Const. art. III
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
The section of the United States Constitution that vests the judicial power of the United States in courts whose judges hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that cannot be diminished. This allocation limits Congress's authority to assign core judicial functions to non-Article III tribunals and requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury for standing.
The article of the Uniform Commercial Code governing negotiable instruments, including rules for transfer, enforcement, and liability of parties to checks, notes, and drafts.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
The section of the United States Constitution that vests the judicial power of the United States in courts whose judges hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that cannot be diminished. This allocation limits Congress's authority to assign core judicial functions to non-Article III tribunals and requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury for standing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Amelia Amari sues in federal court claiming that a new federal statute violates the Constitution because it applies equally to all citizens. She alleges only that the government must follow the law and offers no distinct personal harm. The court dismisses the action because the asserted interest is shared by the entire public and fails to satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.
Alliance Holdings sues a supplier in federal court under a federal statute for breach of an equipment contract. Several downstream buyers join with state-law claims arising from the identical shipment delay. The district court exercises supplemental jurisdiction because the buyers' claims share the same operative facts as the federal claim and form part of one constitutional case or controversy.
Astra Aerospace brings a state-law breach-of-contract action against a private vendor in a non-Article III bankruptcy court. The court refuses to enter final judgment because the dispute involves traditional private rights historically resolved by Article III judges and cannot be assigned wholesale to an Article I body.
A plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact that is both concrete and particularized. A bare statutory violation or a generalized grievance shared by all citizens is insufficient. The plaintiff must also show causation and redressability.
Supporting sources
Once a district court has original jurisdiction, it may hear additional claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III. The claims must share a common nucleus of operative fact with the anchor claim, subject to statutory exceptions in diversity cases.
Supporting sources
The article of the Uniform Commercial Code governing negotiable instruments, including rules for transfer, enforcement, and liability of parties to checks, notes, and drafts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ava Adebayo sues under a consumer-protection statute alleging only that a company failed to provide a required notice. She shows no actual harm or material risk of harm from the omission. The court dismisses for lack of standing because a procedural violation alone does not establish the concrete injury Article III demands.
Aurora Biotech challenges the authority of an administrative tribunal that both sets industry standards and adjudicates disputes under a regulatory program. The tribunal's judges lack life tenure. The court upholds the structure because the body performs functions incidental to Congress's legislative powers and qualifies as a permissible hybrid Article I court.
No. Congress may not transfer cases traditionally heard by Article III courts, such as state-law contract claims between private parties, wholesale to Article I bodies. Such an assignment violates the constitutional allocation of judicial power.
Supporting sources
Congress may regulate and make exceptions to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction, but it cannot eliminate all avenues of federal judicial review of constitutional claims. At least one federal forum must remain available.
Supporting sources
A court may decline when a claim raises novel or complex state-law issues, when state claims substantially predominate, or when the court has dismissed all claims supporting original jurisdiction. These discretionary grounds promote comity and docket management.
Supporting sources