United States District Court

The United States District Court (USDC) is the trial court of the U.S. federal judiciary. Each district court has at least one courthouse, and many districts have more than one. District courts' decisions are appealed either to the U.S. Court of Appeals (USCA), when that court existed, or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

United States District Court
Established	January 2, 2013 (10 years ago)
Location	Washington, D.C., Colorado, Nevada
Composition method	Presidential nomination with Senate confirmation
Authorized by	Article III of the Constitution of the United States
Judge term length	Life tenure
Number of positions	8 (by statute)
Chief Judge of the United States District Court
Currently	NewPlayerqwerty

District courts are courts of law, equity, and admiralty, and can hear both civil and criminal cases. But unlike U.S. state courts, federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and can only hear cases that involve disputes between residents of different states, questions of federal law, or federal crimes.

Although the District Courts are strictly geographically divided within real-life, within nUSA, the same judges sit in each district, and the geographic division is more ambiguous.

Jurisdiction and Constitution

Unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, which was expressly established by Article III of the Constitution, the district courts were established by Congress pursuant to authority delegated by Article III through the enacting of a federal statute, the Judiciary Act of 1789. There is no constitutional requirement that district courts exist at all.

Unlike some state courts, the power of federal courts to hear cases and controversies is strictly limited. Federal courts may not decide every case that happens to come before them. In order for a district court to entertain a lawsuit, Congress must first grant the court subject matter jurisdiction over the type of dispute in question.

The district courts exercise original jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, of which the best known are the following:

• Civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;
• Certain civil actions between citizens of different states or citizens of a state and a foreign state;
• Civil actions within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States;
• Criminal prosecutions brought by the United States;
• Civil actions in which the United States is a party

For most of these cases, the jurisdiction of the federal district courts is concurrent with that of the state courts. In other words, a plaintiff can choose to bring these cases in either a federal district court or a state court. Congress has established a procedure whereby a party, typically the defendant, can "remove" a case from state court to federal court, provided that the federal court also has original jurisdiction over the matter (meaning that the case could have been filed in federal court initially). If the party that initially filed the case in state court believes that removal was improper, that party can ask the district court to "remand" the case to the state court system. For certain matters, such as patent and copyright infringement disputes and prosecutions for federal crimes, the jurisdiction of the district courts is exclusive of that of the state courts, meaning that only federal courts can hear those cases.

In addition to their original jurisdiction, the district courts have appellate jurisdiction over a limited class of judgments, orders, and decrees.

Judges

A judge of a United States district court is officially titled a "United States District Judge". Other federal judges, including circuit judges and Supreme Court justices, can also sit in a district court upon assignment by the chief judge of the circuit or by the Chief Justice of the United States. The number of judges in each district court (and the structure of the judicial system generally) is set by Congress in the United States Code. The President appoints the federal judges for terms of good behavior (subject to the advice and consent of the Senate), so the nominees often share at least some of his or her convictions. In states represented by a senator of the president's party, the senator (or the more senior of them if both senators are of the president's party) has substantial input into the nominating process, and through a tradition known as senatorial courtesy can exercise an unofficial veto over a nominee unacceptable to the senator.

Federal magistrate judges are appointed by each district court pursuant to statute. They are appointed for an eight-year term and may be reappointed for additional eight-year terms. A magistrate judge may be removed "for incompetency, misconduct, neglect of duty, or physical or mental disability". A magistrate judgeship may be a stepping stone to a district judgeship nomination.

District judges usually concentrate on managing their court's overall caseload, supervising trials, and writing opinions in response to important motions like the motion for summary judgment. Since the 1960s, routine tasks like resolving discovery disputes can, in the district judge's discretion, be referred to magistrate judges. Magistrate judges can also be requested to prepare reports and recommendations on contested matters for the district judge's consideration or, with the consent of all parties, to assume complete jurisdiction over a case including conducting the trial.

Generally, federal district judges are Article III judges appointed for life, and can be removed involuntarily only when they violate the standard of "good behavior". The sole method of involuntary removal of a judge is through impeachment by the United States House of Representatives followed by a trial in the United States Senate and a conviction by a two-thirds vote. Otherwise, a judge, even if convicted of a felony criminal offense by a jury, is entitled to hold office until retirement or death.

At some points within nUSA's history, United States judges have been able to retire or elect to go on senior status (not to be confused with the courtesy title of "Senior Judge") and keep working. Such judges in senior status are not counted in the quota of active judges for the district and do only whatever work they are assigned by the chief judge of the district, but they keep their offices (called "chambers") and staff, and many of them work full-time.

A federal judge is addressed in writing as "The Honorable John/Jane Doe" or "Hon. John/Jane Doe" and in speech as "Judge" or "Judge Doe" or, when presiding in court, "Your Honor".

Court Officers

Clerk of the Court

The district court appoints a clerk, who is responsible for overseeing filings made with the court, maintaining the court's records, processing fees, fines, and restitution, and managing the non-judicial work of the court, including information technology, budget, procurement, human resources, and financial. Clerks may appoint deputies, clerical assistants, and employees to carry out the work of the court.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 authorized the Supreme Court and the judge of each U.S. District Court to appoint a clerk to assist with the administration of federal judicial business in those courts. The clerk for each district court was to also serve as clerk of the corresponding circuit court. The Judiciary Act required each clerk to issue the writs summoning jurors and "to record the decrees, judgments and determinations of the court of which he is clerk."

The Judicial Code (28 U.S.C. § 751) provides that the clerk is appointed, and may be removed, by the court. The clerk's duties are prescribed by the statute, by the court's customs and practices, and by policy established by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The clerk is appointed by order of the court en banc to serve the entire court. The role of the clerk and deputies or assistants should not be confused with the judges' law clerks, who assist the judges by conducting research and preparing drafts of opinions.

Magistrate Judges

In the United States District Courts, magistrate judges are judges appointed to assist District Court judges in the performance of their duties. Magistrate judges generally oversee first appearances of criminal defendants, set bail, and conduct other administrative duties. The position of "magistrate judge" or "magistrate" also exists in some other jurisdictions, where the position may also be known by its former name of "judicial commissioner".

Magistrate judges are appointed by a majority vote of the federal district judges of the District Court. The exact means by which magistrates are appointed has varied thoughout the history of the United States.

Role

The magistrate judge's seat is not a separate court; the authority that a magistrate judge exercises is the jurisdiction of the district court itself, delegated to the magistrate judge by the district judges of the court under governing statutory authority, local rules of court, or court orders. Rather than fixing the duties of magistrate judges nationwide, the Federal Magistrates Act allows each district court to assign duties to the magistrate judges as fits the needs of that court.

In criminal proceedings, magistrate judges preside over misdemeanor and petty offense cases, and as to all criminal cases (felony and misdemeanor) may issue search warrants, arrest warrants, and summonses, accept criminal complaints, conduct initial appearance proceedings and detention hearings, set bail or other conditions of release or detention, hold preliminary hearings and examinations, administer oaths, conduct extradition proceedings, and conduct evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress evidence in felony cases for issuance of reports and recommendations to the district judge.

The Supreme Court has held in Peretz v. United States that magistrate judges may supervise the jury selection in a felony trial unless a party objects.

In civil proceedings, magistrate judges typically manage discovery and other pretrial matters. They are authorized to issue orders in pretrial matters as long as the order is not dispositive of the case as a whole (for example, an order granting summary judgment is not within their purview). They may also be assigned to write reports and recommendations to the district judge as to dispositive matters. With the consent of the parties, they may adjudicate civil cases in the same manner as a district judge, including presiding over jury or non-jury trials.

Relation to Article-III judiciary

Because 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 – 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 Article I, making them Article I judges.

The Supreme Court most thoroughly delineated the permissible scope of Article I tribunals in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., striking down the 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 separation of powers which clearly required that the 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 de novo review in the supervising Article III court, which retains the exclusive power to make and enforce final judgments.

The Supreme Court later stated, in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 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.