[suijuris]

JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL COURTS: Art I and Art III Courts:



O'Donohue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933): Ruled that district courts were Art. III courts.



'As the only judicial power vested in Congress is to create courts whose judges shall hold their offices during good behavior, it necessarily follows that, if Congress authorizes the creation of courts and the appointment of judges for a limited time, it must act independently of the Constitution and upon territory which is not part of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution. ... It is sufficient to say that this case (The American Insurance Company et al. v. Canter, supra) has ever since been accepted as authority for the proposition that the judicial clause of the Constitution has no application to courts created in the territories, and that with respect to them Congress has a power wholly unrestricted by it.' [289 U.S. 516, 543] After an exhaustive review of the prior decisions of this court relating to the matter, the following propositions, among others, were stated as being established:



'1. That the District of Columbia and the territories are not states within the judicial clause of the Constitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states;



'2. That territories are not states within the meaning of Rev. St. 709, permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state statute is drawn in question;



'3. That the District of Columbia and the territories are states as that word is used in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the ownership, disposition, and inheritance of property;



'4. That the territories are not within the clause of the Constitution providing for the creation of a supreme court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit to establish.'







These [territorial] courts then, are not Constitutional courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general rights of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested, is not a part of that judicial power which is defined in the 3d article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress, in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States. Although admiralty jurisdiction can be exercised in the States in those courts only which are established in pursuance of the 3d article of the Constitution, the same limitation does not extend to the territories. In legislating for them, Congress exercises the combined powers of the general and of the State government.

[American Insurance Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton]

[1 Pet. 511 (1828), emphasis added]





The United States District Court is not a true United States court established under Article III of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article IV, Section 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court.

[Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 at 312]

[42 S.Ct. 343, 66 L.Ed. 627 (1921)]



United States District Courts have only such jurisdiction as is conferred by an Act of Congress under the Constitution.

U.S.C.A. Const. art. 3, sec. 2; 28 U.S.C.A. 1344]

[Hubbard v. Ammerman, 465 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir., 1972)]





The United States district courts are not courts of general jurisdiction. They have no jurisdiction except as prescribed by Congress pursuant to Article III of the

Constitution. [many cites omitted]

[Graves v. Snead, 541 F.2d 159 (6th Cir. 1976)]





The question of jurisdiction in the court either over the

person, the subject-matter or the place where the crime was committed can be raised at any stage of a criminal proceeding; it is never presumed, but must always be proved; and it is never waived by a defendant.

[U.S. v. Rogers, 23 F. 658 (D.C.Ark. 1885)]





In a criminal proceeding lack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and may be asserted at any time by collateral attack.

[U.S. v. Gernie, 228 F.Supp. 329 (D.C.N.Y. 1964)]





Jurisdiction of court may be challenged at any stage of the proceeding, and also may be challenged after conviction and execution of judgment by way of writ of habeas corpus.

[U.S. v. Anderson, 60 F.Supp. 649 (D.C.Wash. 1945)]





The United States District Court has only such jurisdiction as Congress confers.

[Eastern Metals Corp. v. Martin]

[191 F.Supp 245 (D.C.N.Y. 1960)]