Consent, Caseload and Other Justifications for Non-Article Iii Courts and Judges: A Comment on Commodity Futures Trading Commission V. Schor

36 Pages Posted: 29 Nov 2010

See all articles by Ralph U. Whitten

Ralph U. Whitten

Creighton University - School of Law

Date Written: November, 28 2010

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.

Keywords: Article III, court, judge, civil procedure, constitutional law, magistrates

Suggested Citation

Whitten, Ralph U., Consent, Caseload and Other Justifications for Non-Article Iii Courts and Judges: A Comment on Commodity Futures Trading Commission V. Schor (November, 28 2010). Creighton Law Review, Vol. 20, No. 11, 1986, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1716569

Ralph U. Whitten (Contact Author)

Creighton University - School of Law ( email )

2500 California Plaza
Omaha, NE 68178
United States

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
32
Abstract Views
400
PlumX Metrics