What Are the Federal Courts?

What Are the Federal Courts?

The federal courts are the courts of the United States federal government. They exist to decide cases arising under the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, treaties, and other matters placed within federal judicial authority. They also hear certain disputes involving citizens of different states, the federal government, and other matters in which federal law or federal interests are involved.

The federal judiciary is one of the three branches of the federal government. Unlike Congress, which makes federal laws, and the executive branch, which enforces them, the federal courts interpret and apply the law in actual cases and controversies.

The federal court system is not a single courtroom or institution. It is a hierarchical judicial system consisting principally of federal district courts, federal courts of appeals, and the United States Supreme Court. Congress has also created several specialized federal courts and tribunals for particular categories of cases.

The basic structure is therefore:

Federal District Courts → U.S. Courts of Appeals → U.S. Supreme Court

But that simple diagram does not tell the whole story. Federal jurisdiction is limited by the Constitution and federal statutes, different federal courts perform different functions, and some federal judicial bodies operate outside the ordinary three-tier structure.

Understanding what federal courts are is therefore essential to understanding American constitutional law, civil procedure, criminal procedure, administrative law, and virtually every other area of federal law.

1. The Constitutional Foundation of the Federal Courts

The federal judiciary is established by Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

Article III provides that the judicial power of the United States is vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may establish. This provision creates the constitutional foundation for the federal judicial branch while leaving Congress substantial authority to determine the structure of the lower federal courts.

This distinction is important.

The Constitution itself establishes the Supreme Court. Congress, however, creates the lower federal courts and determines many aspects of their organization and jurisdiction.

The modern federal court system is therefore the product of both constitutional authority and congressional legislation.

Congress has created federal district courts throughout the United States and federal courts of appeals organized into geographic and subject-matter circuits. Congress has also established specialized courts to address particular types of federal disputes.

The federal judiciary consequently operates within a constitutional framework while also depending upon legislation for much of its institutional structure.

2. What Is the Purpose of Federal Courts?

At the most basic level, federal courts exist to exercise federal judicial power.

That means resolving legal disputes that fall within federal judicial jurisdiction.

A federal court may be asked to determine whether a federal statute has been violated, whether government action is constitutional, whether a federal criminal defendant is guilty, whether a federal agency acted within its authority, or whether one party owes another a remedy under federal law.

Federal courts may also decide certain cases based on state law when federal jurisdiction exists for another reason, such as diversity of citizenship.

Their function is therefore broader than simply deciding “federal law cases.”

A federal court may apply federal law, state law, or both, depending upon the nature of the case and the source of its jurisdiction.

3. Federal Courts and Limited Jurisdiction

One of the most important characteristics of the federal judiciary is that federal courts generally have limited jurisdiction.

Unlike state courts, which traditionally possess broad authority to hear many different types of disputes, federal courts can hear only those cases that fall within constitutionally permitted and statutorily authorized categories of federal jurisdiction.

This principle is fundamental to American federalism.

The existence of a federal court does not automatically mean that the court can hear every legal dispute.

A person cannot simply choose a federal court because it appears more appropriate or more prestigious. The plaintiff must generally identify a legally recognized basis for federal jurisdiction.

Federal jurisdiction can arise in several ways, including:

• federal question jurisdiction;
• diversity jurisdiction;
• jurisdiction involving the United States;
• certain cases involving treaties;
• bankruptcy jurisdiction;
• specialized statutory jurisdiction; and
• other categories specifically authorized by federal law.

The Constitution establishes outer boundaries, while Congress determines much of the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts through statutes.

This is one reason federal jurisdiction is such an important subject in American civil procedure.

For a broader explanation of the concept of jurisdiction, see the Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute’s Wex materials on jurisdiction.

4. Federal Question Jurisdiction

One major category of federal jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction.

A federal court may hear a civil action arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States when the requirements for federal question jurisdiction are satisfied.

For example, a lawsuit alleging that a federal statute was violated may present a federal question.

Similarly, a constitutional challenge to government action may raise a federal question.

Federal question jurisdiction is particularly important because Congress has enacted a vast body of federal law covering subjects such as:

• civil rights;
• intellectual property;
• bankruptcy;
• federal taxation;
• immigration;
• securities regulation;
• environmental regulation;
• federal employment;
• antitrust law; and
• numerous other areas.

Not every dispute that has some connection to federal law automatically belongs in federal court, however. The precise jurisdictional rules matter.

5. Diversity Jurisdiction

Federal courts also hear certain disputes between parties who are citizens of different states.

This is known as diversity jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction has a long history in American federal law. One of its traditional purposes is to provide a federal forum for interstate disputes in circumstances where Congress has authorized federal jurisdiction.

A diversity case can involve entirely state-law claims.

For example, imagine that a citizen of California sues a citizen of New York over a state-law contract dispute and the statutory requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied. The case may be heard in federal court even though the underlying contract dispute arises under state law rather than federal law.

This demonstrates an important point:

Federal courts do not hear only federal-law claims.

They can sometimes hear state-law disputes because Congress has provided an independent basis for federal jurisdiction.

6. Federal Courts as Trial Courts and Appellate Courts

The federal judiciary contains both trial courts and appellate courts.

The principal federal trial courts are the U.S. District Courts.

District courts generally receive evidence, hear witnesses, conduct trials, rule on motions, and make findings and decisions in cases within their jurisdiction.

Above the district courts are the U.S. Courts of Appeals.

Courts of appeals generally do not conduct trials. Their principal function is to review decisions made by lower courts and, in appropriate circumstances, decisions of federal administrative agencies.

The appellate court examines whether legal or procedural errors occurred. It does not ordinarily retry the case from the beginning.

At the top of the federal judicial hierarchy is the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction, although the overwhelming majority of its cases come to it through its appellate jurisdiction.

This produces the familiar federal judicial hierarchy:

District Courts → Courts of Appeals → Supreme Court

The hierarchy is important because decisions of higher courts establish precedent that lower federal courts must follow when the relevant legal principles apply.

7. The U.S. District Courts

The U.S. District Courts are the primary federal trial courts.

There are 94 federal judicial districts covering the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories and possessions.

District courts are where much federal litigation begins.

A federal district court may conduct a jury trial, hear a bench trial, decide pretrial motions, issue orders, enter judgments, impose criminal sentences, and provide other forms of judicial relief authorized by law.

District judges are therefore frequently the first federal judges to examine the factual and legal issues in a case.

Federal magistrate judges also perform important functions within the district courts, subject to the statutory framework governing their authority.

The district courts are consequently the practical foundation of the federal judiciary for most federal trial litigation.

8. The U.S. Courts of Appeals

The federal courts of appeals are the principal intermediate appellate courts.

There are 13 federal courts of appeals.

Twelve are organized geographically, while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction over particular categories of cases.

The twelve regional circuits review decisions from federal district courts within their geographic territories. They also hear certain appeals involving federal administrative agencies and other matters assigned to them by statute.

The Federal Circuit is different because its jurisdiction is based primarily on the subject matter of the dispute rather than geography.

Courts of appeals generally decide cases through panels of judges rather than through new trials.

Their decisions can establish binding precedent within their respective jurisdictions.

This creates an important feature of American federal law: a federal appellate court may interpret a federal statute in a particular way, while another circuit may interpret the same statute differently.

When that happens, a circuit split can develop.

Such disagreements are one reason cases sometimes reach the Supreme Court.

9. The Federal Judicial Circuits

The federal appellate system is divided into 13 circuits.

The First through Eleventh Circuits and the D.C. Circuit are regional circuits. The Federal Circuit is a nationwide subject-matter circuit.

Each regional circuit encompasses particular states and territories.

For example, the Ninth Circuit covers several western states and territories, while the Second Circuit includes states such as New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

The D.C. Circuit is particularly significant because it handles many important cases involving the federal government and federal administrative agencies.

The Federal Circuit has specialized jurisdiction over areas such as patent appeals and certain claims involving the federal government.

The circuit structure makes the federal appellate system manageable while also allowing different courts to develop their own bodies of precedent.

10. The U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judicial system.

Unlike the lower federal courts, which Congress establishes and structures through federal legislation, the Supreme Court is expressly established by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court has final authority within the federal judicial system on questions of federal law and the U.S. Constitution, subject to the constitutional structure and the possibility of constitutional amendment.

The Court hears only a small proportion of the cases that could potentially be presented to it.

Most cases come to the Supreme Court through petitions for a writ of certiorari.

The Court has discretion over most of its appellate docket. Granting certiorari generally requires agreement by at least four Justices under the Court’s longstanding “Rule of Four.”

The Supreme Court’s decisions can resolve conflicts among lower courts, settle important questions of federal law, interpret constitutional provisions, and establish nationwide precedent.

11. Specialized Federal Courts

The ordinary federal judicial structure is not the entire federal judiciary.

Congress has also created specialized federal courts and judicial bodies to address particular types of disputes.

Examples include the:

• U.S. Court of Federal Claims;
• U.S. Tax Court;
• U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

These institutions do not all operate in precisely the same way.

Some are Article I courts, meaning they derive their judicial authority from Congress’s Article I powers rather than from the Article III judicial power.

Others are Article III courts with specialized subject-matter jurisdiction.

This distinction is constitutionally significant because Article III judges generally receive the constitutional protections associated with Article III judicial office, including tenure during good behavior and protection against diminution of compensation while in office.

Specialized federal courts therefore demonstrate that the federal judicial system is more complicated than the basic district-court-to-circuit-court-to-Supreme-Court model.

12. Article III Courts and Article I Courts

A particularly important distinction in federal judicial structure is between Article III courts and Article I courts.

Article III courts exercise the federal judicial power described in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III judges are appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate and generally serve during good behavior.

Article I courts, by contrast, are created by Congress under its legislative powers.

Congress has considerable flexibility in designing Article I tribunals and courts, including determining the terms of their judges and the scope of their authority.

The constitutional differences can become important when analyzing questions about judicial independence, separation of powers, adjudicatory authority, and the permissible role of non-Article III adjudicators.

For ordinary readers, however, the central point is simple:

Not every federal adjudicative body is an Article III court.

The phrase “federal courts” can therefore refer to several different kinds of judicial institutions depending on context.

13. Federal Courts and the Constitution

Federal courts play a central role in constitutional government.

Courts may be called upon to determine whether governmental action complies with the Constitution.

For example, a federal court might consider whether:

• a federal statute violates a constitutional right;
• an executive action exceeds constitutional authority;
• a government search violates the Fourth Amendment;
• a criminal procedure violates due process;
• a restriction on speech violates the First Amendment; or
• a governmental classification violates equal protection principles.

These questions illustrate the relationship between federal courts and judicial review.

Judicial review allows courts, when properly presented with a case or controversy, to determine whether governmental action is consistent with the Constitution.

But courts do not possess unlimited authority to decide constitutional questions whenever they wish.

The case must satisfy constitutional and statutory requirements for judicial jurisdiction, and doctrines such as standing, ripeness, mootness, and the prohibition on advisory opinions can prevent a federal court from reaching the merits.

14. Federal Courts and Separation of Powers

The federal judiciary exists within the constitutional system of separation of powers.

Congress makes federal laws.

The executive branch administers and enforces federal law.

The judiciary interprets and applies law in cases and controversies.

These functions overlap in important ways, but the Constitution establishes institutional boundaries.

Federal courts therefore do not ordinarily decide abstract political questions merely because someone wants a judicial answer.

A court must have a proper judicial controversy before it.

This requirement protects the judiciary from becoming a general policy-making institution and preserves the distinction between judicial power and the political functions of Congress and the executive branch.

At the same time, courts can constrain the political branches when a properly presented case requires them to enforce constitutional limits.

That tension is an essential part of American constitutional law.

15. Federal Courts and State Courts

The federal judiciary exists alongside the state court systems.

The United States therefore has a dual court system.

A person may encounter a state court or a federal court depending upon the nature of the dispute, the parties, the applicable law, and the jurisdictional rules.

Some disputes may potentially be heard in either system.

Other disputes belong exclusively to one system.

For example, many state-law disputes are ordinarily litigated in state court, while certain matters such as bankruptcy are assigned principally to federal jurisdiction.

The relationship between the two systems is governed by federalism and constitutional principles.

Federal courts may apply state law, and state courts may apply federal law.

A state court can therefore be called upon to interpret the U.S. Constitution or a federal statute.

Likewise, a federal court hearing a diversity case may be required to apply the substantive law of a particular state.

The two court systems are separate, but they are not isolated from one another.

16. Federal Courts and Federal Law

Federal courts are particularly important because they provide authoritative judicial interpretation of federal law.

When Congress enacts a federal statute, courts may eventually have to determine what that statute means.

Words in legislation may be ambiguous. Different factual situations may raise questions that Congress did not expressly address. Parties may disagree about how a statutory provision applies.

Federal courts resolve these disputes through legal interpretation.

Their interpretations can become precedent.

The Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law is binding on lower federal courts. Decisions of federal courts of appeals generally bind federal district courts within the relevant circuit, subject to higher authority.

This hierarchical structure helps create consistency while also allowing legal doctrine to develop over time.

17. What Happens When Federal Courts Disagree?

Because multiple appellate circuits exist, disagreements sometimes arise.

Suppose the First Circuit interprets a federal statute one way while the Ninth Circuit interprets the same provision differently.

Neither circuit automatically controls the other.

The result may be different legal rules in different parts of the country.

This is known as a circuit split.

Circuit splits are not necessarily evidence that the federal judiciary is malfunctioning. They are a natural consequence of having multiple independent appellate courts interpreting federal law.

They can, however, create uncertainty for individuals, businesses, government agencies, and lawyers.

The Supreme Court can sometimes resolve the disagreement by accepting a case and establishing a controlling interpretation.

18. Federal Courts and Juries

Federal courts also play an important role in the American jury system.

In appropriate civil and criminal cases, juries determine factual questions.

A jury may decide whether the government has proved a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt or whether a civil plaintiff has established the elements of a claim under the applicable standard of proof.

The judge and jury have different roles.

The judge generally determines questions of law and manages the legal proceedings. The jury, when one is empaneled, determines disputed facts within the framework established by the court.

Not every federal case has a jury.

Some cases are decided by judges alone, particularly when the law does not provide a right to a jury or when the parties proceed through a bench trial.

19. Federal Courts and Remedies

Federal courts do more than declare who is legally correct.

When authorized by law, they can provide remedies.

Depending on the case, a federal court may issue:

• monetary damages;
• injunctions;
• declaratory judgments;
• writs;
• orders requiring or prohibiting particular conduct;
• criminal sentences; and
• other forms of relief authorized by law.

The availability of a remedy depends on the legal claim, the court’s jurisdiction, statutory authority, constitutional limitations, and the facts of the case.

A federal court therefore does not possess unlimited remedial power simply because it has jurisdiction over a dispute.

20. Federal Courts and Administrative Agencies

Federal courts also interact extensively with the federal administrative state.

Congress creates federal agencies and gives them statutory authority to administer particular areas of federal law.

Disputes may arise over an agency’s interpretation of a statute, the procedures it followed, or the legality of its final action.

Federal courts may review agency action when authorized by law and when the requirements for judicial review are satisfied.

Administrative law therefore creates an important connection between agencies and the federal judiciary.

The courts do not simply substitute their policy preferences for those of administrative agencies. Instead, judicial review operates within a complex framework of statutes, constitutional principles, administrative procedures, and judicial doctrines.

This relationship has become one of the most important areas of modern federal law.

21. Who Decides Which Federal Court Hears a Case?

The answer depends on several factors.

Among the most important are:

What kind of case is it?

A bankruptcy case, federal criminal prosecution, constitutional challenge, patent dispute, and ordinary state-law contract dispute may be governed by very different jurisdictional rules.

What is the legal basis for federal jurisdiction?

A party must identify a valid basis for federal judicial authority.

Where did the relevant events occur?

Geographic considerations can affect which federal district and circuit are appropriate.

What court has authority over the particular subject matter?

Some federal statutes assign particular categories of disputes to specialized courts.

Is the case being heard for the first time or on appeal?

Trial courts and appellate courts perform fundamentally different functions.

These questions are part of the larger subject of federal civil and criminal procedure.

22. Why Federal Courts Matter

Federal courts affect virtually every major area of American public and private law.

They interpret the Constitution.

They enforce federal criminal statutes.

They decide disputes involving federal agencies.

They adjudicate bankruptcy proceedings.

They hear civil rights cases.

They resolve certain interstate disputes.

They interpret federal statutes.

They hear appeals from lower federal courts.

And, through the Supreme Court, they provide authoritative interpretations of the Constitution and federal law.

The federal judiciary therefore serves as a central institution for maintaining the rule of law within the federal system.

At the same time, federal courts are intentionally limited.

They do not possess general authority to decide every dispute in American society. Their legitimacy depends in part upon respecting the boundaries of judicial power established by the Constitution and Congress.

23. The Federal Courts as a System

It is useful to think of the federal judiciary as a system of interconnected institutions, rather than simply a collection of courthouses.

At the trial level, district courts develop the factual record and make initial legal determinations.

At the appellate level, courts of appeals review lower-court decisions and develop binding precedent within their circuits.

At the highest level, the Supreme Court resolves selected questions of national importance and provides authoritative interpretations of federal law and the Constitution.

Specialized federal courts and tribunals perform additional functions within their statutory and constitutional frameworks.

Together, these institutions form the federal judicial structure.

The system balances several competing objectives:

• uniformity of federal law;
• regional judicial independence;
• access to justice;
• constitutional limitations;
• efficient case resolution;
• appellate oversight;
• judicial independence; and
• federalism.

No single institution performs every judicial function.

The strength of the federal judiciary comes from the interaction among its different levels.

24. Federal Courts in Everyday Life

Federal courts may seem distant from ordinary life, but their decisions can have direct consequences for individuals and businesses.

A federal case might involve employment discrimination, intellectual property, immigration, bankruptcy, civil rights, federal taxation, environmental regulation, securities, consumer protection, criminal prosecution, or a constitutional challenge to government action.

A person may also encounter federal courts indirectly.

For example, a state-law dispute may become connected to federal litigation, a state court may apply a federal constitutional rule, or a Supreme Court decision may change the legal framework governing conduct throughout the country.

Federal judicial decisions therefore frequently reach beyond the parties standing before the court.

When courts establish legal precedent, the consequences can extend across industries, communities, government agencies, and the nation as a whole.

25. The Most Important Distinction to Remember

The most important thing to remember about federal courts is that they are courts of limited federal judicial authority operating within a larger constitutional system.

They are not simply another version of state courts.

They exist because the United States is a federal constitutional system in which national and state governments possess different areas of authority.

The federal judiciary provides a judicial forum for matters entrusted to federal authority while leaving substantial judicial responsibility to the states.

Within that federal system, the district courts, courts of appeals, Supreme Court, and specialized federal tribunals perform different functions.

Understanding those differences makes it much easier to understand everything that follows in federal procedure and constitutional law.

Key Takeaways

1. Federal courts are part of the judicial branch of the U.S. federal government.
2. Article III of the Constitution establishes the federal judicial power and the Supreme Court.
3. Congress establishes the lower federal courts and determines much of their jurisdiction.
4. Federal courts generally have limited jurisdiction, unlike state courts, which traditionally possess broader jurisdiction.
5. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear qualifying cases arising under federal law.
6. Diversity jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear certain disputes between citizens of different states when statutory requirements are satisfied.
7. U.S. District Courts are the principal federal trial courts.
8. The U.S. Courts of Appeals are the principal intermediate federal appellate courts.
9. There are 13 federal courts of appeals, consisting of 12 regional circuits and the Federal Circuit.
10. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judiciary.
11. Specialized federal courts and tribunals also exist, including both Article III and Article I institutions.
12. Federal courts can interpret both federal and state law, depending on the basis of jurisdiction and the nature of the case.
13. Federal courts exercise judicial review only through proper cases and controversies, subject to doctrines such as standing, ripeness, and mootness.
14. Federal courts coexist with state courts, forming the dual court system of the United States.
15. Federal appellate precedent creates a hierarchical system of legal authority, while disagreements among circuits can produce circuit splits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Are all federal courts Article III courts?

No. The principal constitutional federal courts—district courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court—are Article III courts. Congress has also created Article I courts and tribunals with specialized functions.

How many federal courts are there in the United States?

The federal judiciary includes 94 federal district courts and 13 federal courts of appeals, along with the Supreme Court and various specialized federal courts and tribunals.

The number can therefore vary depending on what is being counted as a “federal court.”

What is the lowest level of the federal court system?

The U.S. District Courts are the principal federal trial courts. They are generally the first federal courts to hear a case.

What is the highest federal court?

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal judicial system.

Can federal courts hear state-law cases?

Yes. Federal courts can hear certain state-law claims when an independent basis for federal jurisdiction exists, such as diversity jurisdiction. In those cases, federal courts may be required to apply state substantive law.

Can state courts decide federal questions?

Yes. State courts can hear and decide many questions involving federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution. The fact that a legal question concerns federal law does not automatically require the case to be filed in federal court.

What is the difference between a federal district court and a federal court of appeals?

A district court is primarily a trial court. It hears evidence, conducts trials, decides motions, and develops the factual record.

A court of appeals is primarily an appellate court. It reviews decisions from lower courts for legal or procedural error and generally does not conduct a new trial.

Why are there different federal circuits?

The federal appellate system is divided into multiple circuits so that appellate review can be organized geographically, while the Federal Circuit handles specified subject-matter appeals nationwide.

What happens if two federal circuits disagree?

A disagreement between federal appellate circuits is commonly called a circuit split. The Supreme Court may eventually resolve the conflict by accepting an appropriate case for review.

Can a federal court declare a law unconstitutional?

Yes, when a proper case or controversy is before the court and the constitutional question is properly presented. Federal courts exercise judicial review within the limits imposed by the Constitution and federal law.

Do federal courts handle criminal cases?

Yes. Federal courts hear prosecutions for violations of federal criminal law. State courts separately handle violations of state criminal law, although some conduct can potentially implicate both federal and state criminal statutes.

Why are federal courts important to the rule of law?

Federal courts provide an institutional mechanism for interpreting federal law, enforcing constitutional limits, resolving disputes within federal jurisdiction, reviewing governmental action, and providing judicial remedies. Their authority is nevertheless limited by the Constitution, statutes, and the requirement that courts decide genuine legal controversies rather than abstract questions.