Talk:Federal tribunals in the United States

message: I propose that we relocate the Article I controversy to the end of the article. Article III courts are usually the "courts" in people's daily languages. Very few people and even lawyers ever went to an administrative court. We have to emphasis the importance of Article III courts. -- Toytoy 03:23, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
:Well, you're partly correct.  It's true that Article III courts are the true courts both in the legal sense and in common parlance.  But it's not true that few people or lawyers ever go to administrative courts.  Indeed, administrative courts do much of the grunt work in the federal system and even the trial level Article III courts are almost appeals courts much of the time now.  The only huge exception is criminal law, of course, where only Article III courts can exercise federal jurisdiction. CoramVobis 18:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second editor CoramVobis on this point. For example, in Federal tax matters the United States Tax Court, an Article I court, hears far more tax cases than any Article III court. Yours, Famspear 01:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocate the Article I controversy 

message: There are also several administrative patent judges at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (see interference proceeding. I think they are also Article I judges. -- Toytoy 07:24, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
*There are administrative law judges in dozens of Federal agencies, not just the Patent Office, and they all exercise Article I authority. Russ Blau (talk) 16:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
ALJs actually do have life tenure though they are not article III judges. The article is confusing on this point. However the decisions of ALJs are ususally appealable to an agency appeals board which is not made up of ALJs so otherwise, the article is correct. ALJs are certainly not Article III judges. One can argue that many of them are Article II judges, but the distinction between Article I courts and Article II courts does not seem important. Esorlem 13:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent judges 

message: In all this discussion, I see no mention of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC} which is responsible for considering surveillance & physical search orders from the Dept. of Justice & US intelligence agencies.  I don't even know if there's a Wikipedia article on the existence of this Court . . .
A Google search for "court foreign intelligence" will turn up a number of hits, including an "Ask Yahoo!" item dealing with this Court.
: As far as I know, these "adm. law judges" are government employees. They only became "judges" since 1970s or 1980s. These "judges" are not independant. Their decisions have to be reviewed by their agencies. I really don't know if we should call them judges. -- Toytoy 15:14, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
:: if you read some of the articles available via a Google search, you'll find that the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court are Article III judges. -- tharkun860 June 29, 2005 05:22 (UTC)
:::If they have lifetime appointments and irreduceable salaries, they are by definition Art. III. bd2412 T 02:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What About the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Court? 

message: I just came across a couple of orphan pages for the military COAs. I'm not sure where to put them, but they need to be wikified.
* Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals
* Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals
* Army Court of Criminal Appeals
* Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals
Mneumisi 12:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Military COAs

message: I'm still confused as to why the "United States Court in Berlin" is not an Article II court, per US v. Tiede. The Court's authority derives from the powers of an occupying military power as recognised under international law, which is exercised in the ultimate by the President as Commander-in-Chief. The fact that the President delegated to the US Ambassador, whose role is governed under the Foreign Service Act, the task of setting up this court, doesn't make the Court somehow a creature of the Foreign Service Act. Hypothetically, suppose the Foreign Service Act, and related laws, never existed - the President could still appoint Ambassadors, with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, per Article II of the Constitution. Congress may, and has, pass laws governing Ambassadors, but no Congressional legislation is necessary for Ambassadors to exist, and the role of Ambassador was not created by Congress (it was created by Article II). Alternatively, the President, rather than delegating this power to the US Ambassador, could have chosen to retain this power personally, and hence appointed this court. So, the US Court in Berlin was not an Article I or IV court, its an Article II Court. 60.225.114.230 (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: US Court in Berlin

message: Article IV and Article III courts.
References:
United States territorial court
--Seablade (talk) 05:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this article has expanded to cover tribunals under all four Constitutional provisions permitting them (although I suppose a tribunal mandated by a treaty could be considered an Article VI tribunal), should we rename the article to something broader? bd2412 T 02:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article IV and Article III tribunals 

message: The Article III tribunals section states that the enumerated courts are the current ones, basically the usual court structure plus the Court of International Trade. That may be true today, however both the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were once Article I and Article III courts, after some intervening changes. Both were (separately) abolished in 1982. Technically [after looking at it again] it is accurately worded, but that historic detail might be relevant if anyone wanted to add it.
That's probably not completely relevant, but I may add the line "current" or something similar to that. If anyone else has details though please add them. Shadowjams (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the only Article III tribunals...

message: There is some confusion. The last sentence of the first paragraph states, "Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.". The beginning of the next paragraph states, "An example is the High Court of American Samoa...". As far as I know, and the Wikipedia article indicates, the High Court of American Samoa is still an Article IV court. "An example is..." would be indicative of referring to the High Court of American Samoa as being defunct. Maybe the sentence should read:
*"The High Court of American Samoa, an Article IV tribunal, is a court established pursuant to the Constitution of American Samoa.", or something like this. Otr500 (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I expect the confusion arose because the part about defunct courts was added after the rest of the section had been written, leaving it unclear what the word "example" referred back to. Perhaps a simpler fix might just be to change it to "An example of a territorial court is...." ? Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good work. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article IV tribunals section 

message: The list of Article 1 courts perhaps incorrectly include BIA: See An Urgent Priority: Why Congress Should Establish an Article I Immigration Court, by Hon. Dana Leigh Marks among others.
786wiki (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board of Immigration Appeals is not an Article 1 Court 

message: The article says:
: Many United States territorial courts are defunct because the territories under their jurisdictions have become states or have been retroceded.
: 
What retrocessions?  Is this about retrocession of unincorporated territories to other countries?  Or giving part of DC back to Virginia? Or giving part of an incorporated territory back to a state?  Or what? Michael Hardy (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have an answer, but United States territorial court uses the same language. meamemg (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retrocession? 

message: Hello 2001:569:7BCD:6900:9D90:B7A:69CA:E3C (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are their real powers?