Also known as: Article I court · legislative courts
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Specialized tribunals established by Congress pursuant to its Article I legislative powers to resolve disputes closely tied to federal regulatory or administrative schemes. Judges of these tribunals lack life tenure and salary protection. These bodies may perform both administrative and judicial functions without violating Article III.
Aaron Adams sued Avalon Pharmaceuticals in federal bankruptcy court over a state-law supply contract dispute after Avalon filed for reorganization. The trustee asked the court to enter final judgment on the claim as core to the estate. The district court rejected that request because the claim was a traditional private-party contract action that Congress could not assign wholesale to a non-Article III tribunal.
Adam Anderson challenged a reimbursement ruling by the Federal Intergovernmental Relations Court after the tribunal issued a binding order on cost-sharing between states and a federal administrator. The court also gave nonbinding advisory opinions on program rules. The Supreme Court upheld the structure because the tribunal combined administrative and adjudicative roles within a federal benefits scheme.
Austin Abbott moved to quash a subpoena issued by an independent counsel whose appointment and removal provisions were at issue. The district court upheld the counsel's authority after finding that the position performed functions incidental to executive enforcement rather than core judicial power. The Supreme Court sustained the arrangement as consistent with separation of powers.
Open the case page for the full write-up.
View caseAnika Anand demanded a jury trial in district court after a bankruptcy trustee sued her company for fraudulent conveyance under state law. The trustee argued the claim belonged in the Article I bankruptcy court. The Supreme Court held that the private right to a jury trial could not be eliminated by assigning the action to a non-Article III tribunal.
The Chase & Sanborn Corporation filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in 1983. A plan approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida then vested in respondent Nordberg, the trustee in bankruptcy, causes of action for fraudulent conveyances. In 1985 respondent filed suit against petitioners Granfinanciera, S. A., and Medex, Ltda., in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that petitioners had received $1.7 million from Chase & Sanborn's corporate predecessor within one year of the bankruptcy petition without receiving consideration or reasonably equivalent value. The complaint sought to avoid the transfers and recover damages under 11 U. S. C. §§ 548(a)(1) and (a)(2), 550(a)(1) (1982 ed. and Supp. V). The District Court referred the proceedings to the Bankruptcy Court. Over five months later respondent served a summons on petitioners in Bogota, Colombia shortly before the Colombian Government nationalized Granfinanciera. In their answer both petitioners requested a trial by jury on all issues so triable. The Bankruptcy Judge denied petitioners' request for a jury trial, deeming a suit to recover a fraudulent transfer a core action that originally, under the English common law, as I understand it, was a non-jury issue. Following a bench trial, the court dismissed with prejudice respondent's actual fraud claim but entered judgment for respondent on the constructive fraud claim in the amount of $1,500,000 against Granfinanciera and $180,000 against Medex. The District Court affirmed without discussing petitioners' claim that they were entitled to a jury trial. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit also affirmed, 835 F. 2d 1341 (1988), ruling that petitioners lacked a statutory right to a jury trial because the constructive fraud provision contains no mention of such a right and 28 U. S. C. § 1411 affords jury trials only in personal injury or wrongful death suits, and that the Seventh Amendment supplied no right because fraudulent conveyance actions are equitable in nature and bankruptcy proceedings are inherently equitable. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether petitioners were entitled to a jury trial, 486 U. S. 1054 (1988), and now reverses.
Amber Alonzo sought review of an agency award for workplace injury after the deputy commissioner found that her employer-employee relationship existed. The employer argued the fact-finding exceeded the agency's authority. The Supreme Court upheld the agency's role as an adjunct making initial determinations subject to judicial review.
Knudsen filed a claim for compensation against Benson under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act with Deputy Commissioner Crowell of the United States Employees' Compensation Commission. The evidence introduced before the deputy commissioner was directed largely to the employment issue and was conflicting. After considering the evidence the deputy commissioner found that Knudsen was in Benson's employ at the time of the injury and filed an order for compensation. Benson then brought suit in the United States District Court to enjoin enforcement of the award. Benson alleged that Knudsen was not his employee at the time of the injury and that the claim lay outside the deputy commissioner's jurisdiction. An amended complaint further challenged the constitutionality of the Act on multiple grounds. Those grounds included alleged violations of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures, and the judicial power provisions of Article III. The District Judge denied motions to dismiss and granted a hearing de novo upon the facts and the law. The case was transferred to the admiralty docket, answers were filed presenting the issue as to the fact of employment, and the evidence of both parties having been heard, the District Court decided that Knudsen was not in the employ of the petitioner and restrained the enforcement of the award. The decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, and this Court granted writs of certiorari.
Alan Ackerman challenged his sentence on the ground that the Sentencing Commission lacked constitutional authority because its members served fixed terms. The district court rejected the claim after determining that the commission performed a hybrid rulemaking and adjudicative function tied to Congress's legislative power over criminal sentencing.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act to address widespread criticisms that federal sentencing was a national scandal marked by unwarranted disparities and uncertainty. The legislation created the United States Sentencing Commission as an independent commission in the judicial branch consisting of seven voting members. The President appoints the members with the advice and consent of the Senate, and at least three members must be federal judges selected after consideration of recommendations from the Judicial Conference of the United States, while the Attorney General serves as an ex officio nonvoting member. Petitioner John M. Mistretta was indicted in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri on three counts centering on a cocaine sale. He pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district court sentenced him under the Guidelines to 18 months' imprisonment to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release, along with a $1,000 fine and a $50 assessment. Mistretta appealed his sentence to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, challenging the constitutionality of the Sentencing Commission and the Guidelines. Both Mistretta and the United States petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari before judgment in the Eighth Circuit. The Court granted the petitions because of the imperative public importance of the issue and the disarray among the federal district courts.
Article I courts are created by Congress under its legislative powers and their judges lack life tenure and salary protection. Article III courts exercise the judicial power of the United States and their judges receive lifetime tenure and salary protection. Article I tribunals often combine administrative and adjudicative functions within federal regulatory schemes.
…§ 2053(a), which engage substantially in what has been called the "quasi-legislative activity" of rulemaking, and for members of Article I courts, such as the Court of Military Appeals, see 10 U. S. C. § 867(a)(2), who engage in the "quasi-judicial" function of adjudication. It has often been observed, correctly in my view, that the…
…over members of another Branch. Indeed, we already have recognized that the President may remove a judge who serves on an Article I court. McAllister v. United States , 141 U. S. 174, 185 (1891). In any event, we hold here no more than that Congress may vest in the President the power to remove for good cause an
…which the judicial power extends that may not be subjected to the conclusive determination of administrative bodies or federal legislative courts, it is not because of any prohibition against the diminution of the jurisdiction of the federal district courts
…Corp. , 279 U. S., at 451. See also Williams v. United States , 289 U. S. 553, 581 (1933) (noting sovereign immunity origins of legislative courts); Ex parte Bakelite , supra , at 453-454 (same). Cf. McElrath v. United States , 102 U. S. 426, 440 (1880). In Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co. , 473 U. S. 568 (1985),…
…judiciary and entrust the finding of case-dispositive facts to a non-Art. III tribunal. The rationale of our decisions involving legislative courts has been far more limited, focusing on Congress' plenary power over specialized areas of geography or subject matter and on the manifest need for a more flexible tribunal to perform…
No. Congress may not take cases traditionally heard by Article III courts, such as state-law contract claims between private parties, and assign them wholesale to Article I courts. A broad grant of jurisdiction over such claims to non-Article III bankruptcy courts violates Article III.
No. Congress may create non-Article III tribunals that combine advisory and adjudicative functions when the work is integral to a federal regulatory or administrative scheme. The absence of life tenure and salary protection does not render such hybrid bodies unconstitutional.
Congress may create Article I courts when the tribunals adjudicate matters closely tied to federal regulatory or administrative schemes, such as public rights arising from federal programs. These bodies may perform both administrative and judicial functions even though their judges lack Article III protections.