Also known as: Article III courts · Art. III court · Article 3 court
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal court vested with the judicial power of the United States under Article III of the Constitution. Its judges hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that may not be diminished while in office. Such courts exercise jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties, as well as cases in which the United States is a party and certain disputes between states or citizens of different states.
Aurora Biotech filed for Chapter 11 and sued Aether Technologies in bankruptcy court for breach of a prepetition supply contract governed by state law. The bankruptcy judge attempted to enter final judgment on the claim. Aether Technologies objected that the dispute was a traditional state-law contract action between private parties that could not be assigned wholesale to a non-Article III tribunal.
The Special Division of the D.C. Circuit, composed of Article III judges, appointed an independent counsel to investigate executive branch officials. The appointee challenged the appointment as invalid because the Division was acting under a special statute. The court upheld the appointment because the Division remained an Article III court exercising authority permitted by the Appointments Clause.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Atlas Ventures objected to personal jurisdiction over nonresident class members in a Kansas state court proceeding that would bind them to a judgment. The objector argued that only an Article III court could properly assess standing for absent parties. The Supreme Court confirmed that federal standing rules apply when the judgment is later invoked in federal court.
Adam Anderson obtained a jury verdict in federal district court on a state-law claim. The court of appeals applied a state standard to reduce the award. Anderson argued that the reduction violated the Seventh Amendment right to jury trial in an Article III court. The Supreme Court held that the federal court must apply federal standards consistent with Article III constraints.
Angela Acosta and other taxpayers sued in federal district court to enjoin a transfer of federal property to a religious college. The government moved to dismiss for lack of standing. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs lacked the injury required for standing in an Article III court.
Astra Aerospace asserted a state-law counterclaim in bankruptcy court against a creditor. The bankruptcy judge entered final judgment on the counterclaim. The creditor objected that the claim was a private right that required adjudication by an Article III court. The Supreme Court agreed that the bankruptcy court lacked constitutional authority to enter final judgment.
Judges of an Article III court must hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that may not be diminished while they remain in office. These protections ensure judicial independence from the political branches. Bodies whose members serve fixed terms without salary protection cannot exercise the judicial power of the United States.
Supporting sources
Congress may not assign such claims wholesale to Article I courts. A prepetition state-law contract dispute remains a traditional Article III case even when it affects a bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court may submit proposed findings subject to de novo review by an Article III district judge but cannot enter final judgment.
Supporting sources
Congress may create Article I tribunals to administer federal regulatory schemes and adjudicate public rights arising within those schemes. Such tribunals may combine rulemaking and adjudication when their work is tied to implementation of congressionally created rights. They may not, however, resolve traditional private-rights disputes historically decided by Article III courts.
Supporting sources
…The Special Division is a "Court of Law" for purposes of the Appointments Clause. It is a division of the Court of Appeals, an Article III court. Appellees argue that the Special Division's appointment power is invalid because the Division is not a "court" in the traditional sense when it acts under the Act. We rejected a similar…