Article I vs. Article III Courts

Article III of the Constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in courts whose judges hold office during good behavior and whose pay cannot be cut. Those two guarantees, effectively life tenure and salary protection, are meant to make judges independent of the political branches. But Congress, using its Article I powers to legislate, has also created tribunals whose judges serve fixed terms and whose independence rests on statute rather than the Constitution. The difference between the two kinds of court is one of the most technical and consequential lines in American law.

Article III courts are the Supreme Court, the thirteen courts of appeals, the ninety-four district courts, and the Court of International Trade, about 870 judgeships in all. Article I courts, sometimes called legislative courts, include the Tax Court, the Court of Federal Claims, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the territorial courts in Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, whose judges serve terms of ten or fifteen years. Bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges are appointed by Article III courts for fixed terms and work as adjuncts to them. Beyond the courts, about 2,000 administrative law judges decide cases inside executive agencies.

The Supreme Court has spent two centuries deciding how much of the judicial power Congress may hand to judges without Article III protection. The general answer is that public rights, disputes between individuals and the government over matters Congress created, such as tax, veterans benefits, or federal licenses, may be assigned to non-Article III tribunals, while private rights of the kind courts traditionally decided must ultimately reach an Article III judge. The Court struck down part of the bankruptcy system on this ground in 1982 and again in 2011.

The line has taken on new importance as the Court has moved to limit agency adjudication. In SEC v. Jarkesy in 2024 it held that when the government seeks civil penalties for fraud, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in an Article III court rather than a proceeding before an agency judge, a ruling that unsettled enforcement across many agencies. Supporters said it restored constitutional protections. Critics said it would cripple regulatory enforcement and flood the courts. Questions about the removal and appointment of administrative judges remain before the courts.