Federal courts how many are there

Generally, Congress determines the jurisdiction of the federal courts. In some cases, however — such as in the example of a dispute between two or more U.

The courts only try actual cases and controversies — a party must show that it has been harmed in order to bring suit in court. This means that the courts do not issue advisory opinions on the constitutionality of laws or the legality of actions if the ruling would have no practical effect.

Cases brought before the judiciary typically proceed from district court to appellate court and may even end at the Supreme Court, although the Supreme Court hears comparatively few cases each year.

Federal courts enjoy the sole power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases. The courts, like Congress, can compel the production of evidence and testimony through the use of a subpoena. The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the land and the only part of the federal judiciary specifically required by the Constitution.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice. All Justices are nominated by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and hold their offices under life tenure.

Since Justices do not have to run or campaign for re-election, they are thought to be insulated from political pressure when deciding cases. Justices may remain in office until they resign, pass away, or are impeached and convicted by Congress. However, the Court may consider appeals from the highest state courts or from federal appellate courts. There are 94 federal judicial districts, including at least one district in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

Three territories of the United States—the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—have district courts that hear federal cases, including bankruptcy cases. Bankruptcy Courts Each of the 94 federal judicial districts handles bankruptcy matters, and in almost all districts, bankruptcy cases are filed in the bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy cases cannot be filed in state court.

Bankruptcy laws help people who can no longer pay their creditors get a fresh start by liquidating their assets to pay their debts, or by creating a repayment plan. Bankruptcy laws also protect troubled businesses and provide for orderly distributions to business creditors through reorganization or liquidation.

The vast majority of cases are filed under the three main chapters of the Bankruptcy Code, which are Chapter 7, Chapter 11, and Chapter As a result of the decision, African American children throughout the country were allowed to attend previously all-white public schools. Constitution, the President nominates men and women to serve on the federal District Courts, the Courts of Appeals, and the U.

Supreme Court. The President sends the nominations to the U. Senate, which provides "advice and consent. Senate the President has the power to make temporary "recess" appointments when the Senate is not in session. Although the Constitution sets forth no specific requirements for who may or may not serve as a federal judge, there are several informal, unwritten qualifications if an individual expects to be approved by the Senate.

First, he or she must clearly exhibit a knowledge of the law and the Constitution. Attorneys, state or lower court judges, or law professors are most commonly tapped to serve.

Members of the U. Senate and sometimes Members of the House of Representatives who are in the same political party as the President or those whose ideology is in line with the President's, make recommendations to fill federal judicial vacancies within their state or for the Court of Appeals that serves their state.

These recommendations are then reviewed by the Department of Justice and the White House General Counsel's office, which makes recommendations to the President. The President, however, sends the final decision to the Senate.

After the President has submitted an individual's name to serve on a federal court to the Senate, the nomination is referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The committee can:. Take no action on the nomination in which case the nomination eventually dies when the Congress adjourns.

Approve the nomination and send it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. As such, it is important to prioritize diversity in the pool of applicants in these sectors as well.

In order to bring individuals from all different backgrounds into the judicial pipeline, it is necessary to get young people of different races and ethnicities, genders, sexual orientations, and religions excited about pursuing a career in law. Many people who have family members who are lawyers or judges are inspired to pursue law as a career. This is problematic as a strategy for building a more inclusive judicial pipeline, however, because people from historically underrepresented groups and backgrounds are not well accounted for within the legal profession.

For instance, the profession as a whole is roughly 85 percent white and 64 percent male. Indeed, for many young people, having a career as a judge may not be on their radar or believed to be within the realm of possibility. More outreach must be done at an early age to get young people with different experiences and backgrounds interested in and excited about a career as a judge. Affinity bar associations and other organizations are already leading on this front.

The Hispanic National Bar Foundation, for example, has programming—such as the Future Latino Leaders Summer Law Institute—that allows Latino high school students interested in pursuing careers in law to connect with Latino leaders in the legal profession. An evaluation of the program found that whereas 46 percent of students reported considering becoming a lawyer before entering the program, that number increased to 65 percent upon completion.

The above groups comprise but a fraction of the vast network of organizations working to foster an interest in law among individuals at an early age. Yet there is always more to be done. For instance, groups offering out-of-state programming should provide scholarships to students of all socio-economic backgrounds who are interested in participating. Such scholarships can go toward application fees, travel costs, and room and board in order to make these opportunities more financially feasible for low-income students.

Affinity bar associations and justice-minded organizations can also host events at which high school students are given the opportunity to hear judges of color and women judges, as well as judges representing a variety of other characteristics and experiences, discuss their work in the courtroom and career paths.

In addition to driving interest and enthusiasm for the profession among youths, events featuring these judges signal to students of all ages, races, and backgrounds that judgeships are within their grasps.

Before becoming a federal judge, one must be admitted to and attend law school. Unfortunately, as described by law professor Sarah E. Redfield in her article on the pipeline to law school, socio-economic barriers often preclude students from underserved communities from competing with their white, affluent peers for admittance to coveted law schools. In addition to overcoming educational barriers, prospective law students from underserved communities must overcome the significant financial burdens associated with applying for and attending law school.

For instance, they must pay to take the LSAT exam—a prerequisite in most states for admission to law school, though a number of law schools now accept GRE scores. Students who have the financial means can also take LSAT tutoring classes, which can give them a leg up on the exam. These prep classes, however, are expensive. Then there is the application process itself.

Furthermore, the astronomical cost of attending law school and the prospect of being hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt upon graduation is a major deterrent for some individuals who might otherwise be interested in pursuing a career as a judge. Making matters worse, law students belonging to historically underrepresented groups are statistically less likely to be hired into high-paying positions upon graduation.

For instance, women of color represent only about By improving education and making it more equitable across communities, a more representative pool of students—across racial, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and socio-economic lines—will enter law school, which starts them on the path to becoming federal judges. The definition of who qualifies for LSAT and law school application fee waivers should be expanded to include more applicants in need.

Private companies offering LSAT test prep should provide low-income applicants with more generous scholarships. For their part, affinity bar associations and justice-oriented organizations can help by establishing scholarship funds to assist low-income students in taking LSAT prep courses and paying the fees associated with the exam—including the costs of travel and lodging if the LSAT testing location is far from home—and with law school applications.

Furthermore, to increase the admission rates for students belonging to historically underrepresented groups, law school must be made more affordable. Additionally, law schools—as well as states and the federal government—must do more to alleviate the massive student debt accrued by their students.

Although the federal government offers a federal loan forgiveness program for working in the public interest for 10 years after law school, the program is incredibly difficult to navigate; only 1 percent of program applicants had their loans forgiven under the program in To address this, some attorneys and politicians have advocated for turning law school into a two-year program, rather than a three-year program.

For example, to help alleviate the burden of student loan debt, Yale offers a comprehensive loan forgiveness program—the Career Options Assistance Program COAP —that allows students making less than a certain amount to forgo payments toward their law school loans. Becoming a federal judge requires more than simply going to any law school. This does not bode well for certain applicants of color and applicants from less affluent backgrounds, who, as noted previously, face unique socio-economic barriers that may prevent them from being admitted to these highly selective institutions.

They should also better prioritize diversifying their student body. This may entail doing more outreach to colleges with high enrollments of students of color, women, LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, and students belonging to religious minorities—as well as taking affirmative steps to invite and encourage students from all backgrounds to visit and apply to their schools.

Such programming can help underserved students to realize that there is a place for them at law school and that the institution values and is invested in promoting diversity within its student body. Once in law school, students may experience an unwelcoming environment that can at times be downright hostile. In particular, students from traditionally underrepresented communities have reported being harassed and discriminated against, which can negatively affect their academic performance and grades.

In addition, students of color may find it disheartening to be taught by white professors who, in their teaching, fail to consider or outright dismiss the important nuances and unique experiences of communities of color. This is especially problematic when 82 percent of all tenured faculty and 80 percent of all full-time faculty members at U. Women only comprise roughly 40 percent of full-time school faculty, while women of color comprise only about 9 percent of such faculty members.

Finally, many law students of color and students from less affluent backgrounds do not enter school on a level playing ground with their white and elite counterparts due to structural barriers. And unfortunately, law schools do not always do a good job addressing the problem. Indeed, at many schools, there are few programs—outside of those organized by affinity law school clubs and bar associations—directed toward students of underrepresented groups or geared toward ensuring their success at law school and in the legal profession upon graduation.

One way to help these students feel a greater sense of belonging is for law schools to prioritize hiring faculty from a variety of backgrounds.

Having a more diverse faculty can make law school feel more welcoming and inviting for students from historically underrepresented backgrounds, which can improve their overall experience. Moreover, having a diverse faculty—like a diverse group of judges—brings different perspectives to the classroom, which makes for a more comprehensive and well-rounded analysis of legal doctrine.

Such robust discussions force students to recognize their own internal biases as well as the structural biases present in the legal system, helping to make them into better lawyers and judges.

Law schools should also set up special programming targeted toward female students, students of color, LGBTQ students, students with disabilities, and students from low-income backgrounds. Students from historically underrepresented groups such as these often face unique barriers navigating the law school experience, from applying and interviewing for jobs or clerkships to finding outside scholarships or funding for unpaid professional opportunities.

Finally, law schools should hold events headlined by female judges as well as judges of different ages, races and ethnicities, socio-economic status, and any number of additional characteristics to talk about their experiences and encourage law students from all walks of life to follow similar paths.

The many challenges that underrepresented students face in law school can prevent them from obtaining prestigious judicial clerkships and positions at distinguished law firms, both of which have traditionally been considered necessary for becoming a federal judge. Many law students obtain highly sought-after clerkships through recommendations by the law professors who mentor them. But students belonging to historically underrepresented groups may find greater difficulty obtaining mentors among law school faculty.

Although white, cis, and male law professors can be good mentors, students who do not fall into those groups may not seek out mentorships if they share little in common with their available potential mentors or suspect them of harboring prejudices.

Aside from helping students obtain clerkships, mentors with shared characteristics and experiences can create safe spaces for students to go and report discrimination or harassment and seek advice in navigating a legal profession that is not friendly to lawyers from all backgrounds. With this in mind, law schools should create structured mentorship programs, whereby students interested in clerking can be paired with law professors from similar backgrounds to help them navigate the process.

An additional barrier for students wishing to obtain clerkships is that clerks are often only provided a small stipend for rent and other living expenses. Some clerks are also required to move temporarily depending on where their judge and court is located.

For clerks who are financially secure or have a financial safety net to supplement their stipends, this is not a problem.

But for others, such financial burdens can deter them from accepting clerkship positions. Indeed, students who lack the means to support themselves or supplement the limited stipends that clerkships offer may have no choice but to pass up such valuable opportunities, which could detrimentally affect their chances of obtaining a future judgeship. To make clerkships more financially feasible, law schools should provide robust funding and scholarships to help students pursue unpaid or low-paying clerkship positions.

Like clerkships—and as noted previously—working at prestigious law firms is often considered an important step to becoming a federal judge. Accordingly, law schools should help students from all backgrounds secure these sought-after positions. Each fall, law schools across the country host events where law firms come to interview students for hiring opportunities.

However, to promote inclusive hiring practices, law schools could allow only those law firms with proven records of hiring and retaining attorneys from historically underrepresented groups and diverse backgrounds to interview students at their school.

Alternatively, law schools could give those firms special priority in selecting students to interview and hire. By only allowing law firms that foster and maintain diversity to participate—or by giving those firms priority—on hiring days, law schools can help incentivize other firms to improve diversity within their ranks.

As an added bonus, law students who do get hired are more likely to be placed at a firm where they will be empowered to succeed. At the very least, law schools should make information about law firm diversity statistics readily available to students and, on law firm interview and hiring days, provide students with rankings of firms based on their commitment to diverse hiring and retention.

As described in previous sections of this report, working in certain sectors of the legal field—for example, serving as a judicial clerk, working at a top law firm, presiding as a state or local judge, or serving as a state attorney general or U. Unfortunately, people of color, women, and individuals from other underrepresented groups are less likely to be employed in these positions. Judges, law firms, politicians, and even voters have a role to play in helping to diversify these legal sectors.

Steps must be taken to ensure that law students and lawyers from all backgrounds have access to these kinds of positions and that they are treated fairly once they attain them. Clerkship positions are not often filled by candidates from historically underrepresented groups.

Previous sections of this report examined the lack of demographic diversity and variance in educational backgrounds among federal judges. But many of those same patterns hold true for federal law clerks. Research shows that from to , Harvard students accounted for nearly a quarter of all Supreme Court law clerks, with students from Yale comprising another 19 percent.

During the same span, just 10 law schools combined accounted for nearly 82 percent of all Supreme Court clerks. Even when individuals belonging to historically underrepresented groups are selected for clerkships, they may feel isolated due to the lack of other clerks and judges with similar backgrounds. Some female clerks have even reported being sexually harassed by male judges. In hiring for clerkships, judges must look beyond law students and graduates who attended elite law schools and consider hiring clerks with different educational backgrounds and experiences.

The elitist structure currently in place closes the door to many highly qualified individuals who would serve as exceptional clerks. Judge Vince Chhabria of the U. But interviewing off-the-radar candidates has sometimes led me to hire a fantastic person who might not originally have been given an interview.

Overall, my hiring process has been better because of this practice, and it has resulted in stronger chambers. Once they are hired, clerks must also have access to resources to report discriminatory or harassing behavior.

Voluntary mentorship programs could also be established to pair clerks with former clerks from similar backgrounds. Such programs could help judicial clerks of all backgrounds to navigate the judicial institution. Like clerkships, prestigious law firms are also highly selective and favor law graduates who attended elite law schools and graduated at the top of their class.

But again, as explored in previous sections, the many obstacles that students from traditionally underserved communities face in law school may cause their GPAs to suffer, especially in comparison with their elite peers, who are advantaged by the current system in many ways.

According to the same study, women comprised slightly less than half of law firm associates that year. The same study found that only 1. And women of color comprised just 3. Candidates from underrepresented backgrounds who do get hired at law firms are not always primed for success. Women, people of color, and LGBTQ people have reported being discriminated against, harassed, or passed over for promotions and assignments at law firms.