The federal constitutional court system (as established by the Constitution and Congress) begins with the district courts, of which there are ninety-one in total. District courts are the basic access point for nearly every single federal case and there is at least one in every state. District courts are the only federal courts in which juries are seated and trials are held. Next on the power scale comes the twelve courts of appeal, which review cases appealed to them from the district courts and also are permitted to oversee and enforce orders from some federal regulatory agencies. The nation is split up into twelve judicial circuits, with each circuit serving at least two states – together, these circuits make up the twelve courts of appeal, one for each circuit area. These courts concern themselves with fixing mistakes made by district courts, such as the improper interpretation of a law or an error in trial proceeding. There are no trials or testimonies or juries involved; instead, each court of appeals is normally presided over by one of three judges, who rotate back and forth on a schedule (in rare cases, when a matter is especially vital, all three judges preside at once). All decisions reached by courts of appeals set precedents for their respective district. Finally, the Supreme Court occupies the highest position of authority within the federal court system.

A diversity of citizenship case is a civil case that involves a plaintiff and defendant who reside in two separate states (for example, if a resident of New Jersey is suing someone from Oregon). This also applies to civil cases where a foreign national is involved, although this is less common. District courts ONLY have jurisdiction in diversity of citizenship cases if the case at hand involves at least seventy-five thousand dollars (either an amount in contention or sought in damages). Any diversity of citizenship case that involves less than this amount, regardless of the differing state laws involved, must instead be settled in state court. This restriction was placed by Congress upon diversity of citizenship cases because it is believed that when a large amount of money is disputed and/or sought, a district court is more appropriate to decide the matter than a state court, which may be unfairly biased in favor of its involved resident. A federal judge is presumed to be better suited to resolve the matter because they are impartial, without no respective state allegiance.

When it comes to obstacles faced by a President’s Supreme Court nominee during the Senate confirmation process, there are a few crucial challenges which can delay or even prevent entirely a nomination. History has shown that when a President nominates a new justice right at the end of his/her term in office, the Senate is likely to object. Senators of either party tend to take more issue with a lame-duck President attempting to nominate a new justice than a freshly inaugurated Chief Executive – usually because it is considered unfair (even unsavory) to allow an outgoing President to make such a substantial appointment. Similarly, a President whose political party holds only a minority in the Senate quite naturally often finds his/her Supreme Court nominee subjected to long rounds of debate and other confirmation delays; without a majority of Senators on his side, the Chief Executive can find it difficult to marshal enough definite supporters. On a more personal note, if information comes to the Senate’s attention that a prospective justice has committed (or even seems likely to have committed) ethical and/or competency violations, naturally this poses quite a substantial problem for the nominee. Delays and/or nomination denial have also occurred if it seems apparent to the Senate that a nominee’s views or policy beliefs could lead them to rule in a manner that would alter the Court’s already established balance of decisions (for example, if the new judge is more conservative, that would help the Court’s other conservatives to outnumber the more liberal justices).

Unlike today, when it came to the selection and appointment of federal judges during the nation’s first century, geography played an important role. Presidents and Senators alike looked to a nominee’s geographic background, specifically which region of the country he (nominees in those days were exclusively male) was born in. Geographic considerations were so weighty because often, allegiance to either the Northern or Southern areas of the country carried with it a commonly-held set of opinions on the nation’s most divisive issues (especially slavery, popular sovereignty, and tariffs). In order to preserve the balance of the power in the nation’s capital, as well as the overall impartiality of federal courts, it was vital that a nominee’s geographic allegiances were taken into account, so as not to unduly imbalance decisions or to encourage biased rulings. However, since the close of the nineteenth century, geography has gradually ceased to be so vital; nowadays, the President and Senators tend to place more importance on a nominee’s partisan and/or ideological leanings, as well as their track records concerning both ethical and competent conduct.

This should have been an easy question. The correct answer is 1. There must be at least 1 District Court in every state. That said, there is no legal upper bound for how many district courts a state may have. Georgia, for example, has three district courts. Florida has three as well, California has four, and Alaska has one. 

This is a slightly tricky question. The correct answer is “12,” although many of you may have been tempted by the answer 11. There are 11 numbered circuits (that is, the “First” through the “Eleventh” Circuit). There are, however, 12 circuits overall, because D.C. has its own Circuit (helpfully named the “D.C. Circuit).

John Marshall served as Chief Justice from his induction in 1801 until his death in 1835. It is by some margin the longest term of any Chief Justice. Taney is second by several years and then no-one else is within a decade. The Court of Marshall is considered one of the most important term in American history. It was during Marshall’s Court that many of the powers and limits of the Judicial Branch were established. He also laid down many precedents that have affected how the Federal and State governments wield power to this day.

The Marshall Court, chaired by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first extended Court in American history. It is most noted for greatly increasing the power of the Judiciary and the Federal government. It was during the Marshall Court that the Supreme Court was established as the final determinant on any argument over the powers of the Constitution.

The "incorporation doctrine" (also called "selective incorporation") is the belief that the Bill of Rights applies to state and local governments as much as it applies to the Federal Government. Prior to 1925, it was considered that the Bill of Rights did not apply as universally at the state and local level as it did at the national level. In a series of cases since 1925 the Supreme Court has established that the Bill of Rights applies equally to all government institutions and levels.

While the Supreme Court is entrusted with many important responsibilities, the most vital (as revealed through study of the history of Court decisions) is upholding national legal supremacy. The Court has continually reinforced the Constitution’s ultimate status as the supreme law of the nation, often by finding in favor of the federal government in a great deal of cases involving state versus federal disputes. By ensuring the federal government’s legal supremacy, the Constitution is upheld as the final voice on national matters, thus safeguarding the people’s rights, maintaining the balance of power between the three federal branches of government, and making sure that all agents of government (whether state or federal) operate within Constitutional parameters. By upholding national legal supremacy, the Supreme Court is able to carry out all its other important functions, including settling disputes between states, enforcing correct and uniform interpretation of laws, and influencing national policy.