Also known as: judicial articles · Article III · judiciary article
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional provision that establishes the Supreme Court, authorizes Congress to create inferior federal courts, grants federal judges life tenure and salary protection, and defines the scope of the judicial power of the United States.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jonathan Jaffe sued a federal agency claiming that its regulations violated a statute applicable to all citizens equally. The district court dismissed the action because Jaffe alleged only an abstract interest in lawful government action rather than a concrete personal injury. Without a particularized harm, the suit could not proceed under the Judicial Article.
Jessica Jacobs filed a federal-question claim against Jha Pharmaceuticals in district court. She added a closely related state-law claim against the same defendant arising from the identical transaction. The court exercised authority over the added claim because it formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy.
Jennifer Jackson sued a private supplier in an Article I bankruptcy court for breach of a state-law contract. The court refused to enter final judgment because the dispute was a traditional private-rights action that Article III reserves for life-tenured judges.
Jordan Jenkins sued a company alleging only that it failed to follow a federal disclosure statute. The court dismissed the complaint because Jenkins showed no concrete or particularized injury beyond the procedural violation itself.
Javier Jimenez challenged a specialized administrative body that both promulgated rules and adjudicated disputes under a regulatory statute. The court upheld the tribunal because it operated as a permissible Article I adjunct implementing congressional policy rather than exercising the full judicial power.
Justin Jarvis challenged a state university policy that denied funding to certain student publications. The court applied Judicial Article limits on standing and jurisdiction to determine whether the claim presented a justiciable controversy suitable for federal adjudication.
It requires that judges of courts exercising the judicial power of the United States hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that cannot be diminished during their continuance in office.
Supporting sources
No. The Judicial Article prohibits Congress from transferring wholesale to Article I courts cases of the type traditionally heard by Article III courts, such as state-law contract claims between private parties.
…procedural and substantive law is hazy but no one doubts federal power over procedure. Wayman v. Southard , 10 Wheat. 1. The Judiciary Article and the “necessary and proper” clause of Article One may fully authorize legislation, such as this section of the Judiciary Act. In this Court, stare decisis , in statutory construction,…
…In that situation we thought that the requirements of standing should be strict, lest the standards of "case or controversy" in Article III of the Constitution become blurred. Here those doubts are removed by reason of a criminal conviction for serving married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting statute. Certainly…
…pursue the late-created "special permit" procedure before his takings claim can be considered ripe. Lucas has properly alleged Article III injury in fact in this case, with respect to both the pre-1990 and post-1990 constraints placed on the use of his parcels by the Beachfront Management Act. That there is a discretionary…
…jury trial in civil cases should have found its way into the Constitution that emerged from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787. Article III, § 2, cl. 3, merely provides that "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury." The omission of a clause protective of the civil jury right was not for lack…
…forces personnel. Having previously held that civilian dependents could not constitutionally be deprived of the protections of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in capital cases, Reid v. Covert , 354 U. S. 1 (1957), we held that the same result must follow in noncapital cases. Indeed, our opinion there…
No. Article III requires a concrete and particularized injury in fact. A plaintiff must show more than a procedural violation divorced from any actual or threatened harm.
Once the court has original jurisdiction, it may hear additional claims that form part of the same case or controversy under Article III, subject to statutory limits and discretionary factors such as novel state-law issues.
Yes. The Judicial Article permits Congress to establish hybrid Article I bodies that perform both administrative and judicial functions when implementing legislative powers, even though their judges lack life tenure.
No. An interest in having the government follow the law, shared equally by all citizens, does not constitute the concrete and particularized injury required by the Judicial Article.