| United States |
|---|
|
Legislature
Presidency
Judiciary
|
|
Other countries · Atlas |
In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate in accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution.
In addition to the Supreme Court of the United States, whose existence and some aspects of whose jurisdiction are beyond the constitutional power of Congress to alter, acts of Congress have established 13 courts of appeals (also called "circuit courts") with appellate jurisdiction over different regions of the United States, and 94 United States district courts. Every judge appointed to such a court falls within the category of federal judges. These include the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, Circuit Judges of the courts of appeals, and district judges of the United States district courts. In addition, judges of the Court of International Trade are appointed pursuant to Article III.
Other judges serving in the federal courts, including magistrate judges and bankruptcy judges, are also sometimes referred to as "federal judges"; however, they are not appointed pursuant to the procedures designated in Article III. The distinction is sometimes expressed by saying that they are not "Article III judges," because the power of these other kinds of federal judges does not derive from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. See Article I and Article III tribunals.
Contents |
"Article III federal judges" (as opposed to judges of some courts with special jurisdictions) serve "during good behavior" (often paraphrased as appointed "for life"). Judges hold their seats until they resign, die, or are removed from office. Although the legal orthodoxy is that judges cannot be removed from office except by impeachment by the House of Representatives followed by conviction by the Senate, several legal scholars, including William Rehnquist, Saikrishna Prakash and Steven D. Smith, have argued that the Good Behaviour Clause may, in theory, permit removal by way of a writ of scire facias filed before a federal court, without resort to impeachment.
Since the impeachment process requires a trial by the United States Senate, and since the constitutional provision concerning federal judges' tenure cannot be changed without the ratifications of three-fourths of the states, federal judges have perhaps the best job security available in the United States. Moreover, the Constitution forbids Congress to diminish a federal judge's salary. Twentieth-century experience suggests that Congress is generally unwilling to take time out of its busy schedule to impeach and try a federal judge until, after criminal conviction, he or she is already in prison and still drawing a salary, which cannot otherwise be taken away (see Nixon v. United States, a key Supreme Court case about Congress's discretion in impeaching and trying federal judges).
As of January 2008, federal district judges were paid $169,300 a year, circuit judges $179,500, Associate Justices of the Supreme Court $208,100 and the Chief Justice of the United States $217,400. All were permitted to earn a maximum of an additional $21,000 a year for teaching.[1]
Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly pleaded for an increase in judicial pay, calling the situation a "constitutional crisis." The problem is that the most talented associates at the largest U.S. law firms with judicial clerkship experience (in other words, the attorneys most qualified to become the next generation of federal judges) already earn as much as a federal judge in their first year as full-time associates. Thus, when those attorneys eventually become experienced partners and reach the stage in life where one would normally consider switching to public service, their interest in joining the judiciary is tempered by the prospect of a giant pay cut back to what they were making 10 to 20 years earlier (adjusted for inflation). One way for attorneys to soften the financial blow is to spend only a few years on the bench and then return to private practice or go into private arbitration, but such turnover creates a risk of a revolving door judiciary subject to regulatory capture.
Thus, Chief Justice Roberts has warned that "judges are no longer drawn primarily from among the best lawyers in the practicing bar" and "If judicial appointment ceases to be the capstone of a distinguished career and instead becomes a stepping stone to a lucrative position in private practice, the Framers' goal of a truly independent judiciary will be placed in serious jeopardy."[2] Naturally, the other alternative to raising judicial pay would be to impose wage controls for all attorneys, but that would be a political nonstarter. Historically, wartime experiments with emergency wage controls had highly negative effects upon the U.S. economy.
Once a Judge meets age and service requirements he may retire and will then earn his final salary for the remainder of his life, plus cost of living increases. The "Rule of 80" is the commonly used shorthand for the age and service requirement for a judge to retire, or assume senior status, as set forth in Title 28 of the US. Code, Section 371(c). Beginning at age 65, a judge may retire at his current salary, or take senior status, after performing 15 years of active service as an Article III judge (65 + 15 = 80). A sliding scale of increasing age and decreasing service (66 + 14, 67 + 13, 68 + 12, 69 + 11) results in eligibility for retirement compensation at age 70 with a minimum of 10 years of service (70 + 10 = 80).[3][4][5]
Under section 376 a survivor's annuity to benefit the widow, widower or minor child of the Judge may be purchased via a deduction of 2.2% to 3.5% from the retirement benefit.[6]
The total number of active federal judges is constantly in flux, for two reasons. First, judges retire or die, and a lapse of time usually occurs before new judges are appointed to fill those positions. Second, from time to time Congress will increase (or, less frequently, decrease) the number of federal judgeships in a particular judicial district, usually in response to shifting population numbers or a changing workload in that district.
As of January 2009, a total of 3,168 individuals had been appointed to federal judgeships, including 2,645 district court judges, 687 courts of appeals judges, 50 judges to the now-extinct circuit courts, and the 9 Supreme Court justices. This adds up to 3,492 total appointments; a substantial number of appellate judges (including Supreme Court justices) had previously served on the lower court bench.[7]
There are currently 874 authorized Article III judgeships: nine on the Supreme Court, 179 on the courts of appeals, 9 on the court of international trade and 677 for the district courts.[8] Although the number of Supreme Court Justices has remained the same for well over a century, the number of court of appeals judges has more than doubled since 1950, and the number of district court judges has increased more than three times in that period.[7]
Unlike the judges of Article III courts, non-Article III judges are appointed for specified terms of office. Examples include United States magistrate judges and judges of the United States bankruptcy courts, United States Tax Court, United States Court of Federal Claims, and United States territorial courts.
|
|||||||||||