U.S. Federal Court System: Structure, Jurisdiction & Key Doctrines

History of the Federal Court System

Fletcher and Pfander begin their discussion of federal courts in the U.S. by examining the history of the federal court system. The foundation of the federal court system is Article III of the Constitution, which grants the Supreme Court the judicial power of the country. In addition to the Supreme Court, this article also gives inferior federal courts judicial power as may be established and ordained by Congress from time to time (Fletcher & Pfander, p. 3). Based on this article, the federal court system is grounded in the establishment of the Supreme Court, which is distinct from both the executive and the legislature. Congress retains the discretion to determine what other federal courts may be established. Article III only established one court and granted Congress the discretion to decide on the creation of others. The Framers of the Constitution seemingly granted such discretion to Congress on the grounds that the federal government could not be effective unless other courts were created to assist in law enforcement. According to Frank, the creation of a federal lower court system in the U.S. was seemingly influenced by the necessity to resolve international admiralty disputes (p. 28).

The history of federal courts in the country dates back to 1789, when Congress acted on its mandate to decide on the creation of other federal courts. In 1789, Congress established a federal judiciary comprising six justices — one of its first legislative acts. Fletcher and Pfander postulate that the emergence of the modern federal judicial system was influenced by several regulations, including the 1871 Civil Rights Act and the Evarts Act of 1891 (p. 7). These regulations introduced profound changes to the federal court system, which had remained relatively stable until the Civil War period. The initial federal courts established by Congress had significantly unspecialized jurisdiction. Congress later established specialized courts with specialized jurisdiction, including territorial courts, District of Columbia courts, the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, the Court of Federal Claims, and adjunct courts such as bankruptcy courts and federal magistrates (Fletcher & Pfander, p. 9).

Justiciability and the Case or Controversy Requirement

Justiciability relates to restrictions on the legal issues over which courts can exercise their judicial authority (Fletcher & Pfander, p. 15). In essence, justiciability addresses when a court has judicial authority and the ability to offer sufficient resolution to a dispute. Justiciability is one of the most important concepts of the U.S. federal court system, as it deals with the limits of law and adjudication. The judicial authority of federal courts is stipulated in Article III of the Constitution. This article creates several justiciability doctrines to determine when federal courts can adjudicate disputes (Cole, p. 1). Justiciability doctrines emanating from Article III include ripeness, standing, feigned cases, advisory opinions, mootness, and political questions. Based on this article, the jurisdiction of federal courts is restricted to adjudicating "cases" and "controversies."

The political question doctrine focuses on restrictions on adjudication of issues that are generally within the responsibility of other governmental authorities (Bendor, p. 312). If a federal court finds that any of the four justiciability doctrines applies to a case, a controversy is deemed non-justiciable. Justiciability doctrines were developed by federal courts to help determine whether disputes presenting federal questions can be adjudicated. However, these doctrines have been applied to all nine categories of cases and controversies (Hessick, p. 75). Federal justiciability requirements are also applied to lawsuits brought under the provisions of diversity jurisdiction. The doctrines of justiciability usually overlap and can rarely be applied with absolute precision.

Congressional Authority over Federal Court Jurisdiction

Congressional power over the jurisdiction of federal courts is grounded in Article III, the Constitution's judicial article. The U.S. Constitution establishes a federal judiciary with significant autonomy: federal judges have life tenure, and diminutions of their salaries are prohibited. To this extent, federal courts in the U.S. have significant independence to carry out their legal duties and responsibilities. However, the Constitution also grants Congress the power to regulate these courts. Congressional power over federal courts exists to help ensure that proper checks and balances exist for federal courts to carry out their legal work in line with the Constitution. In line with Article III, federal courts do not have general jurisdiction comparable to that of state courts (Fletcher & Pfander, p. 55). Federal courts are restricted to the subject matter jurisdiction specified in Section 2 of Article III. Therefore, if a case does not fall under one of the stipulated heads of jurisdiction in this section, it cannot be heard by a federal court (Fletcher, p. 930).

Congress has some amount of unchallenged authority to limit federal courts' jurisdiction (Fletcher & Pfander, p. 58). Congressional power to grant and withhold jurisdiction, as well as to regulate the original and appellate jurisdiction of lower federal courts, is derived from the Madisonian Compromise. Congress uses its powers to allocate jurisdiction among federal courts by making regulations and exceptions concerning jurisdiction. In some cases, Congress strips federal courts of the jurisdiction to hear an entire category of cases. Congress sometimes exercises this authority even in the midst of ongoing litigation, which reflects the breadth of its power to restrict federal court jurisdiction. With regard to allocating jurisdiction, Congress has the power to assign whole cases, assign exclusive jurisdiction over specific questions, and allocate jurisdiction between courts under Article I and Article III.

According to Fletcher, historical evidence shows that the word "all" in Section 2 of Article III applies to all four heads of jurisdiction (p. 933). These four heads are federal question, admiralty jurisdiction in the first paragraph, ambassador, and state-as-a-party jurisdiction. While the term "all" is used in reference to these four heads of jurisdiction, it authorizes — but does not require — Congress to confer exclusive jurisdiction on federal courts. This implies that Congress has the liberty to specify whether some or all cases brought under these four heads of jurisdiction fall within the federal courts' exclusive jurisdiction. Since Congress has the authority to specify exclusive jurisdiction in these cases, they are only brought in federal courts. Therefore, federal courts rather than state courts must hear all cases under these heads of jurisdiction.

Works Cited

Bendor, Ariel L. "Are There Any Limits to Justiciability? The Jurisprudential and Constitutional Controversy in Light of the Israeli and American Experience." Indiana International & Comparative Law Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 1997, pp. 311–378.

Cole, Jared P. "The Political Question Doctrine: Justiciability and the Separation of Powers." Congressional Research Service, 23 Dec. 2014,

Fletcher, William A. "Congressional Power over the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: The Meaning of the Word 'All' in Article III." Duke Law Journal, vol. 59, 2010, pp. 929–954.

Fletcher, William A., and James E. Pfander. Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts. 5th ed., West Academic Publishing, 2014.

Hessick, F. Andrew. "Cases, Controversies, and Diversity." Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 109, no. 1, 2015, pp. 57–108.

Snepp, Frank W. "The Law Applied in the Federal Courts." Law and Contemporary Problems, vol. 13, no. 1, 1948, pp. 165–181.

Thomson Reuters. "Annotation 21 — Article III." Findlaw for Legal Professionals, Findlaw, 2022,