Talk:United States territorial court

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.

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

Historical courts
A few territorial courts, such as New Mexico, functioned for many years. Information about these courts can be quite difficult to access. Black-Robed Justice by Arie W. Poldervaart is one example. This book sold new for $3.50. There is information out there though. In this particular case there is an archived copy at https://archive.org/stream/newmexicohistori22univrich/newmexicohistori22univrich_djvu.txt User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:03, 1 November 2018 (UTC)