Question: What federal court case of 1988 institutionally upheld the The Special Division?

Context articles: Morrison v. Olson
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co.
Federal Court of India
Holmes v. California National Guard
Hess v. Reynolds
Federal Court of Australia
Special Division
Asho tribe
Brian Tamberlin
Van Dusen v. Barrack

Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) , is a United States federal court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that the Independent Counsel Act was constitutional.
Klaxon Company v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Company, 313 U.S. 487 (1941) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the choice-of-law principles of "Erie Railroad v. Tompkins" to conflicts between laws of different states for cases sitting in federal court on diversity jurisdiction.
 The court held that a federal court sitting in diversity must apply the choice-of-law doctrine of the forum state to choose between the forum state's law and the other state's law (as distinguished from the federal choice-of-law doctrines which had been used before "Erie").
The Federal Court of India was a judicial body, established in India in 1937 under the provisions of the "Government of India Act 1935", with original, appellate and advisory jurisdiction.
 It functioned until the supreme courts were established in India (1950) and in Pakistan (1956) were established.
 Although the seat of the Federal Court was at Delhi, however, the Federal Court was established in Pakistan in Karachi after the partition.
 There was a right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London from the Federal Court of India.
 The federal court was in Delhi in India
Andrew Holmes v. California National Guard, 124 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.
 1998) was a federal court case heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, that upheld the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that restricted service by gays and lesbians in the California National Guard of the United States.
 The court decided that a member of the National Guard could not be discharged for saying publicly that he or she is homosexual or bisexual, but could be restricted to assignments that did not require recognition by the federal government.
Hess v. Reynolds, 113 U.S. 73 (1885) , was Supreme Court case determining whether a probate case from Michigan should be moved to federal court and, if so, which federal court should hear it.
 The court issued a writ of error on the judgment of the Eastern District of Michigan federal court for remanding a case back to the state court but determined that was indeed the appropriate federal court to hear the case.
The Federal Court of Australia is an Australian superior court of record which has jurisdiction to deal with most civil disputes governed by federal law (with the exception of family law matters), along with some summary (less serious) criminal matters.
 Cases are heard at first instance by single Judges.
 The Court includes an appeal division referred to as the Full Court comprising three Judges, the only avenue of appeal from which lies to the High Court of Australia.
 In the Australian court hierarchy, the Federal Court occupies a position equivalent to the Supreme Courts of each of the states and territories.
 In relation to the other Courts in the federal stream, it is equal to the Family Court of Australia, and superior to the Federal Circuit Court.
 It was established in 1976 by the Federal Court of Australia Act.
The Special Division is a division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
 28 U.S.C. § 49 (1982 ed., Supp.
 V) (Title VI of the Ethics in Government Act).
 It consists of three circuit court judges or justices appointed by the Chief Justice of the United States.
 One of the judges must be a judge of the DC Circuit, and no two of the judges may be named to the Special Division from a particular court.
 The judges are appointed for 2-year terms, with any vacancy being filled only for the remainder of the 2-year period.
 Its constitutionality was upheld in Morrison v. Olson.
Asho people (Burmese: my ), one of the tribes of the Chin people, are native to Arakan, Magwe Special Division, Pegu Special Division, Irrawaddy Special Division and some in Yangon Special Division.
 They are much influenced by the Burmese in their daily life.
 They are well educated and having high profile jobs in the Myanmar government.
Brian Tamberlin, BA, LLB, LLM, QC is a retired Australian jurist, barrister, law commentator and justice in the Australia's federal court.
 Tamberlin was educated at Marist Brothers Parramatta (Class of 1955) where he came 10th in the State in Modern History in the Leaving Certificate that year.
 He subsequently received both his Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws from the University of Sydney.
 He later received his LLM in law from Harvard Law School.
 Tamberlin was called to the New South Wales bar in 1967 specializing in town planning law, commercial law and administrative law and equity, and became a Queen's Counsel in 1981.
 Tamberlin was appointed a federal court justice in 1994.
 Tamberlin engaged in lecturing initiatives in legal areas such as federal constitutional law, administrative law and intellectual property in several countries such as the United States, Vietnam and Thailand.
 He traveled to Indonesia in AusAID programs operated by the Law Faculty for Indonesian judges, with professor Philip Lewis Griffiths.
 Tamberlin has also served as a justice in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
 Following Tamberlin's retirement from the federal court of Australia in March 2009, he became the Deputy President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, an independent body which reviews the decisions of the Australian Government.
 On 27 February 2009, A ceremony marking the retirement of Justice Tamberlin from the federal court was held.
 Recently, Tamberlin headed a royal commission-style inquiry that was investigating the former Labor government's $5.3 billion sale of NSW electricity assets.
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that when a case is transferred from a federal court in one state to a federal court in another, the choice of law should be that of the state in which the case was originally filed.