Talk:United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico

Nature of the article and reintroduction of text
The contents of this article are essentially a list of judges, yet the article is not titled "List of..." Article needs actual details about this district court: history, jurisdiction, interactions, important cases, cases appealed, etc. A list of individual judges, while important, should be secondary to the nominal function of the article.

I am reintroducing text and section about this court not being a true US district court which User:Seablade had reverted. The information I had contributed was properly cited information, and the citation came from a reliable source, thus fulfilled all WP editing requirements. If this is a "constitutional Article III Court. U.S. Congress expressly extended the Article III to Puerto Rico" as the reverting editor is arguing, then that information too should also be part of the article. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

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 United States District Court on the Puerto Rico jurisdiction born on 1966 and still in function today! The court created on the year 1900adjourns on 1966! This article is about the court created on 1966, not the court created on 1900. --Seablade (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Puerto Rico article III
Why is it that Puerto Rico's courts are artice III courts and not article I courts like the other territories? --Jfruh (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A special statute was passed 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 statute has been passed for the three insular territories that still have Article I status, though there have been calls from time to time that these judges also deserve the protection of life tenure. Newyorkbrad 00:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Glidden Co. v. Zdanok (consolidated with Lurk v. United States), 370 U.S. 530 (1962), Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries.

The United States territorial courts are tribunals established in territories of the United States by the United States Congress, pursuant to its power under Article Four of the United States Constitution (article IV), the Territorial Clause not Article I of the U.S. Constitution.

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.

The reason for the enactment of this Law: There does not appear any reason why the U.S. District Judges for the District of Puerto Rico should not be placed in a position of parity as to tenure with all other Federal Judges throughout our judicial system. Moreover, federal litigants in Puerto Rico should not be denied the benefit of judges made independent by life tenure from the pressures of those who might influence his chances of reappointment, which benefits the Constitution guarantees to the litigants in all other Federal Courts. These judges in Puerto Rico have and will have the exacting same heavy responsibilities as all other Federal district judges and, therefore, they should have the same independence, security, and retirement benefits to which all other Federal district judges are entitled.

See 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90 (emphasis added); see also Examining Bd. of Engineers Architects and Surveyors v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. at 595 n.26 (“The reason given for this [law] was that the Federal District Court in Puerto Rico ‘is in its jurisdiction, powers, and responsibilities the same as the U.S. district courts in the (several) states’.”). This important change in the federal judicialstructure of the island was implemented not as a request of the Commonwealth government, but rather at the repeated request of the Judicial Conference of the United States. See Senate Report No. 1504, 1966 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2786-90.

In conclusion, 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 United States District Court on the Puerto Rico jurisdiction born on 1966 and still in function today! The court created on the year 1900 adjourns on 1966!

Reference: United States District Court

--Seablade (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * COMMENT:All I was saying was that your information was not in the article, which I have now added for you as you seem to have missed my point. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

List of Magistrate Judges
Due to agreements between PRDoJ and USDoj, all crimes involving an illegal firearm in Puerto Rico are being prosecuted in Federal court, dramatically increasing the caseload and the prominence of Federal magistrate judges in this District. Their names are part of the encyclopedic info that should be referenced here. I suggest reconsidering the edit to remove the list. Pr4ever (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should explain first that my edit removing lists of Magistrate Judges from this article was part of a series of edits removing lists of Magistrates from all United States District Court articles. While it would be appropriate to mention the agreement between the PRDoj and the USDoj and the increasing case load of the court, it is not necessary nor desirable to include lists of Magistrate Judges, as they are not considered notable. Now there are some Magistrates who have achieved notability due to notable decisions they have made, but in the case here, none of these Magistrates appear to be in any way notable on their own. If a Magistrate is notable, listing him in the main article would be appropriate, but that is very rare for Magistrates. Safiel (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Although individual Magistrate Judges may not ordinarily be notable (in terms of warranting their own articles) by Wikipedia standards, I can still see value to including a list of the Magistrate Judges in a given district. This is encyclopedic information, does not give rise to any collateral concerns such as BLP violations, and can readily be verified at any given moment through the reliable source of the court's own website. A list of the current Magistrate Judges in a given district is certainly not as important as information on the District Judges, but I don't see it as problematic to leave such a list in if it complete, current, and accurate. The best argument in favor of deleting lists of Magistrate Judges would be if experience has shown that the editors on the District Court articles are not keeping the lists up-to-date or if they are diverting editing resources from more important matters. I'd be interested in whether that is the case, on the District Court articles generally, or on the article on this court in particular. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)