Consent, caseload and other justifications for non-article III courts and judges: A comment on Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor

Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Authors
Whitten, Ralph U.
Issue Date
1986
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Journal Issue
Alternative Title
Abstract
This article discusses the constitutionality of creating non Article III courts and judges and the reasoning behind their creation. The focus of the article is how previous cases from the Supreme Court determined the status and constitutionality of magistrate judges. A few of the examples discussed relates to courts in the District of Columbia and bankruptcy courts. The article further analyzes a few of the main reasons behind the creation of these courts, such as topics and/or geography that need specialized courts and judges, and the justification of case load burdens on district courts. The article ends by stating that it is unclear whether magistrate courts and judges are actually constitutional, but that there are many reasons to believe that they are unconstitutional.
Description
Citation
Ralph U. Whitten, Consent, Caseload and Other Justifications for Non-Article III Courts and Judges: A Comment on Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 20 Creighton L. Rev. 11 (1986).
Publisher
License
Journal
Volume
Issue
PubMed ID
DOI
ISSN
0011-1155
2168-9261
EISSN