United States District Court For The District of Puerto Rico - Scope and Relevance

Scope and Relevance

The Foraker Act of 1900 created a federal territorial court operating within an unincorporated territory of the United States, the Article IV territorial Court for the district of Puerto Rico hears cases in a framework different from that found at true Article III Constitutional United States District Court within federal district courts.

Though they could be considered "territorial courts" in a semantic sense (since their jurisdictions are not states), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico are not U.S. territorial courts since D.C. and Puerto Rico are Article III federal judicial districts.

On Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922) the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as an argument of non-incorporation:

“The United States District Court (in Puerto Rico) is not a true United States court established under Article 3 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 4, §3, of the Constitution, 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".

The territorial court created on the year 1900 by the U.S. Congress on Puerto Rico ceases to exist on 1966. The U.S. Congress transformed the territorial article IV court into an Article III Constitutional United States District Court by extending the article III constitution to the district. The court created on the year 1900 adjourned in 1966. This article is about the court created on 1966, not the court created on 1900.

Why is it that Puerto Rico's courts are article III courts and not article IV courts like the other territories? A law was passed by the U.S. Congress in 1966 granting life tenure to the judges of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. This was deemed appropriate in light of the court's caseload and the conferral of Commonwealth status on Puerto Rico. No similar law has been passed for the three insular territories that still have Article IV status, though there have been calls from time to time that these judges also deserve the protection of life tenure.

In Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530 (1962) the court cited Balzac and made the following statement regarding courts in unincorporated territories:

Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 266 -267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298, 312 -313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138, 145, 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464 -465, 480. 18

In 1966 President Lyndon Johnson signed Public Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, which transformed the Article IV federal district court in Puerto Rico to an Article III Court. This Act of Congress was not conducted pursuant to Article IV of the Constitution, the Territorial Clause, but rather under Article III. This marks the first and only occasion in United States history in which Congress establishes an Article III Court in a territory other than the District of Columbia.

Read more about this topic:  United States District Court For The District Of Puerto Rico

Famous quotes containing the words scope and, scope and/or relevance:

    A country survives its legislation. That truth should not comfort the conservative nor depress the radical. For it means that public policy can enlarge its scope and increase its audacity, can try big experiments without trembling too much over the result. This nation could enter upon the most radical experiments and could afford to fail in them.
    Walter Lippmann (1889–1974)

    For it is not the bare words but the scope of the writer that gives the true light, by which any writing is to be interpreted; and they that insist upon single texts, without considering the main design, can derive no thing from them clearly.
    Thomas Hobbes (1579–1688)

    The most striking fault in work by young or beginning novelists, submitted for criticism, is irrelevance—due either to infatuation or indecision. To direct such an author’s attention to the imperative of relevance is certainly the most useful—and possibly the only—help that can be given.
    Elizabeth Bowen (1899–1973)