Editing United States District Court (section)

==== Relation to Article-III judiciary ====
Because [[wikipedia:Article_III_of_the_United_States_Constitution|Article III of the United States Constitution]] vests the judicial powers in courts to which the judges are appointed for life (and which are therefore called Article III tribunals), decisions of a magistrate judge are subject to review and either approval, modification or reversal by a district judge of that court &#x2013; except in civil cases where the parties consent in advance to allow the magistrate judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the district judge, and in which case appeals from the decision of the magistrate judge are heard by the United States Court of Appeals.  The magistrate judges therefore operate under the authority of Congress to appoint "inferior courts", set forth in [[wikipedia:Article_I_of_the_United_States_Constitution|Article I]], making them [[wikipedia:Article_I_tribunals|Article I]] judges.<ref name="Baker-Expanding">{{cite journal|first=Tim A.|last=Baker|title=The Expanding Role of Magistrate Judges in the Federal Courts|journal=Valparaiso University Law Review|volume=39|pages=661–692|url=http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=vulr|date=2005|access-date=August 11, 2022}}</ref>

The Supreme Court most thoroughly delineated the permissible scope of Article I tribunals in ''[[wikipedia:Northern_Pipeline_Construction_Co._v._Marathon_Pipe_Line_Co.|Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.]]'',<ref>''[[Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.]]'', [[Case citation|458 U.S. 50]] (1982).</ref> striking down the [[wikipedia:Statute|statute]] that created the original U.S. bankruptcy court. The Court held in that opinion that the framers of the Constitution had developed a scheme of [[wikipedia:Separation_of_powers|separation of powers]] which clearly required that the [[wikipedia:Judicial_branch|judicial branch]] be kept independent of the other two branches via the mechanism of lifetime appointments. However, the Court also found that Congress has the power under Article I to create ''adjunct tribunals'', so long as the "essential attributes of judicial power" stay in Article III courts. This power derives from two sources. First, when Congress ''creates'' rights, it can require those asserting such rights to go through an Article I tribunal. Second, Congress can create non-Article III tribunals to help Article III courts deal with their workload, but only if the Article I tribunals are under the control of the Article III courts.  The magistrate judges fall within this category of "adjunct" tribunals.  All actions heard in an Article I tribunal are subject to [[wikipedia:Trial_de_novo|''de novo'' review]] in the supervising Article III court, which retains the exclusive power to make and enforce final judgments.<ref name="Baker-Expanding" />

The Supreme Court later stated, in ''[[wikipedia:Commodity_Futures_Trading_Commission_v._Schor|Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor]]'',<ref>''[[Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor]]'', [[Case citation|478 U.S. 833]] (1986).</ref> that parties to litigation could voluntarily waive their right to an Article III tribunal, and thereby submit themselves to a binding judgment from an Article I tribunal.