Talk:United States federal judicial district

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am reporting that the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district is missing some necessary information. It purports to be a list of all US District courts and the cities in which the court meets, but is incomplete. Oklahoma has 3 Districts: North, East, and West. I was looking for information about the Western District, but it is not shown. I would edit the page and add the needed information, but do not know it. I hope there are others more knowledgable than I who can fix this, and who may be able to spot other similar problems in the list.

• This is now fixed. Also, the article now reflects that the U.S. has 50, not 49, states. :-) --Russ Blau (talk) 20:19, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete information

The intro to the article state: "places denoted in bold are those where the permanent headquarters of such court are located". This information is complete for Alabama through Montana (alphabetically) but is not entered for Nebraska through Wyoming.

I don't have this information, but someone with it might want to chip in.

[edit] Article I courts?

Quoth the article:

Federal judicial districts have also been established in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Courts in other insular areas are territorial courts under Article I of the Constitution, not United States district courts, although they have similar jurisdiction.

How are DC and PR courts different from other territorial district courts? They surely aren't state courts... --Jfruh 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The United States District Courts in D.C. and P.R. are just that, Article III district courts that have precisely the same jurisdiction as the federal courts in the other districts. The "district courts" of the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands are territorial courts; their judges are not appointed for life, and their jurisdiction is different in some respects (they can hear appeals from the local judges, and hear some cases that arise under territorial). --Russ Blau (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm re-asking this months after the fact, but I guess I'm wondering why these courts are Article III, not Article I. Or, more specifically, why do some territories get Aritcle I courts and others Article III courts. DC I guess I can see as being part of the "metropolitan U.S.," but what distinguishes Puerto Rico from, say, Guam, such that PR gets an Article III court and Guam an Article I court? Is it some matter of distinct status for Puerto Rico, or can Congress erect an Article III court for any territory it wants, and it has only chosen to do so for DC and PR? --Jfruh (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)