List of United States courts of appeals cases

Last updated September 17, 2024

Every year, each of the thirteen United States courts of appeals decides hundreds of cases. Of those, a few are so important that they later become models for decisions of other circuits, and of the United States Supreme Court, while others are noted for being dramatically rejected by the Supreme Court on appeal. Still others are notable for being written with such a clear and concise explanation of the states of the law that they are used by multiple law school casebooks to teach the area of law addressed. The notable decisions of these courts are listed in chronological order by circuit.

First Circuit

Sampson v. Channell , 110 F.2d 754 (1st Cir. 1940): Application of Erie doctrine to choice of law questions.
Commissioner v. Boylston Market Ass'n , 131 F.2d 966 (1st Cir. 1942): Prepaid insurance tax deductions must be allocable over the time period for which the policy covers.
Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton , 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975): The state of Maine could not terminate a trust relationship between non-federally-recognized Indian tribes and the federal government.
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp. , 592 F.2d 575 (1st Cir. 1979): Mashpee Tribe of Massachusetts was not a "tribe"; upheld first litigation under the Nonintercourse Act to go to a jury.
Microsystems Software, Inc. v. Scandinavia Online AB , 226 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2000): Dismissal of claims for reverse engineering and cryptanalysis of content-control software.
Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. , 407 F.3d 546 (1st Cir. 2005): Insufficient notice where a mandatory arbitration agreement was contained in a dispute resolution policy linked to an e-mailed company-wide announcement.
Massachusetts v. United States Department of Health and Human Services , 682 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006): Federal prohibition on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional.
Cook v. Gates , 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008): "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy upheld against due process and equal protection Fifth Amendment challenges and a free speech challenge under the First Amendment.
Glik v. Cunniffe , 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011): First Amendment right to photograph public officials in a public place.

Second Circuit

Nichols v. Universal Pictures Corp. , 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930): Copyright infringement of stock characters.
United States v. One Package of Japanese Pessaries , 86 F.2d 737 (2nd Cir. 1936): Importation of birth control supplies.
United States v. Peoni , 100 F.2d 401 (2d Cir. 1938): Examined mental state for complicity in a crime.
United States v. Carroll Towing Co. 159 F.2d 169 (2d. Cir. 1947): Calculus of negligence.
National Comics Publications, Inc. v. Fawcett Publications, Inc. , 191 F.2d 594 (2d Cir. 1951): Clarified 198 F.2d 927 (2d Cir. 1952).
Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission , 354 F.2d 608 (2d Cir. 1965): Legal standing of a conservation group to sue to prevent environmental damage.
Walkovszky v. Carlton , 276 2d 585 (2d Cir. 1966): Lifting the corporate veil.
Engblom v. Carey , 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982): Third Amendment prohibited eviction of striking prison guards from state-supplied housing in favor of national guardsmen.

Third Circuit

Corfield v. Coryell , (6 Fed. Cas. 546, no. 3,230 C.C.E.D.Pa. 1823): Privileges and immunities.
Monsanto Co. v. Rohm and Haas Co. , 456 F.2d 592 (3d Cir. 1972), failure to disclose material information to the Patent Office was fraudulent, and potentially a violation if the Sherman Antitrust Act
Piscataway School Board v. Taxman , 91 F.3d 1547 (3d Cir. 1996): Affirmative action in public hiring.
Kaelin v. Globe Communications , 162 F.3d 1036 (3rd Cir. 1998): Magazine cover headline which "falsely insinuated" a criminal act may be grounds for a libel action even if the related article inside the magazine is not defamatory.
American Civil Liberties Union v. Schundler , 168 F.3d 92 (3rd Cir. 1999): Standards for a government-sponsored holiday display containing religious symbols.
A.D. Bedell Wholesale Co., Inc. v. Philip Morris Inc. , 263 F.3d 239 (3d Cir. 2001): Tobacco companies could still be found to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act based on pricing activities, despite the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement

Fourth Circuit

Dow v. United States , 226 F. 145 (4th Cir., 1915): Syrian immigrant was entitled to be classified as "white" for purposes of naturalization as a United States citizen, which was then limited on the basis of race.
Backun v. United States , 112 F.2d 635 (4th Cir. 1940): Examined mental element for complicity in a crime.
United States v. Morlang , 531 F.2d 183 (4th Cir. 1975): Standard for abuse of FRE 607.
Dettmer v. Landon , 799 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1986): Wicca reviewed as a religion; no First Amendment violation to deny a Wiccan access to unusual materials.
Comprehensive Technologies International, Inc. v. Software Artisans, Inc. , 3 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 1993): Legal tests for software copyright infringement.
Zeran v. America Online, Inc. , 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998): Liability for website hosts under the Communications Decency Act.

Fifth Circuit

Cowden v. Commissioner , 289 F.2d 20 (5th Cir. 1961): Outlining the factors used to determine whether something received is a cash equivalent, and therefore taxable.
Dixon v. Alabama 294 F. 2d 150 (5th Cir. 1961): Tax-funded college cannot expel students without due process.
Hawkins v. Town of Shaw , 437 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971): Equal Protection Clause applied to distribution of municipal services and infrastructure.
Gates v. Collier , 501 F. 2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974): Abolished racial segregation in prisons and held that various forms of corporal punishment against prisoners constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Smith v. Pilots Union , 296 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 2002): Six-month period of limitations applies to Smith's suit against the Union whether or not he was a supervisor.
McCorvey v. Hill , 385 F.3d 846 (5th Cir. 2004): Original party to the decision in Roe v. Wade lacked standing to have the case re-opened after 30 years.
Horvath v. City of Leander , No. 18-51011 (5th Cir. 2020): An employer may require employees to receive vaccinations, so long as the employer makes reasonable accommodations to religious objections, even if the accommodations offered are not ideal for the employee.

Sixth Circuit

Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States , 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898): Rule of reason in antitrust cases.
Miller v. Commissioner , 733 F.2d 399 (6th Cir. 1984): Taxpayers can claim deductions for uncompensated economic detriments regardless of whether the property was insured.
Alerding v. Ohio High School Athletic Association , 779 F.2d 315 (6th Cir. 1985): Participation in interscholastic sports is not a fundamental privilege protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
American Civil Liberties Union v. National Security Agency , 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007): No standing to sue NSA where plaintiff ACLU could not present evidence that they were the targets of surveillance.
United States v. Warshak , 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010): Fourth Amendment rights bars government from compelling an Internet service provider (ISP) to turn over his emails without first obtaining a search warrant based on probable cause.
Novak v. City of Parma , No. 21-3290 (6th Cir. 2022): Granting qualified immunity to police officers who arrested a parodist.

Seventh Circuit

Harris v. Harvey , 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979): a judge engaging in acts of public defamation inspired by racial prejudice is not protected by judicial immunity and therefore a civil lawsuit against a judge can be brought under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
Selle v. Gibb , 741 F. 2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984): Substantial similarity is not enough to prove copyright infringement in the absence of proof of access.
American Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Hudnut , 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985): Challenged the constitutionality of the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance.
United States v. Harris , 942 F.2d 1125 (7th Cir. 1991): Gift to a long-term mistress did not constitute taxable income.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg , 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996): Validity of shrink wrap contracts.
In re Aimster Copyright Litigation , 334 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2003): Vicarious liability for copyright infringement.
Muth v. Frank , 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005): U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas , 539 U.S. 558 (2003): Striking down anti-homosexual sodomy laws as unconstitutional did not bar laws against consensual adult incest.

Eighth Circuit

Frosty Treats, Inc. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. , 426 F.3d 1001 (8th Cir. 2005): Trademark and trade dress.
United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency , 458 F.3d 822 (8th Cir. 2006): Transport of large amounts of currency concealed in an unusual manner could be taken as evidence that the currency was connected with drug trafficking.

Ninth Circuit

Hirabayashi v. United States 28 F.2d 591 (9th Cir. 1987): Vacation of World War II-era convictions of Japanese-American Gordon Hirabayashi by writ of coram nobis .
Midler v. Ford Motor Co. 849 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1998): Definition of unique feature for purposes of protection from unauthorized impersonation.
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. , 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994): Copyright infringement with respect to the layout of a computer desktop.
A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. , 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001): Vicarious liability for copyright infringement.
Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. , 236 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2001): Whether unauthorized access of password-protected website violates federal Wiretap Act prohibition on intercepting electronic communications.
Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. , 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003): Liability of internet forum providers.
Grosso v. Miramax Film Corp. , 383 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2004): Preemption of state law claims by the copyright act.
Arizona Cartridge Remanufacturers Ass'n Inc. v. Lexmark International Inc. , 421 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2005): Validity of certain end-user license agreements.
Sprint PCS, L.P. v. City of La Cañada Flintridge , 435 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2006): Ability of a city to deny construction permit on aesthetic grounds.
Navajo Nation v. United States Forest Service , 479 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2007): Whether use of treated sewage water on lands considered sacred to the Navajo Nation violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon , 542 F. 3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008): Implied licenses to use, modify and retain the source code of computer programs, and the enforceability of non-competition agreements.
Joffe v. Google, Inc. , 41 W. St. U. L. Rev. 279 (9th Cir. 2013-2014): Whether the Wiretap Act covers the interception of unencrypted Wi-Fi communications.
SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories , 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014): Peremptory challenges striking potential jurors because of their sexual orientation violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Tenth Circuit

Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States , 593 F.2d 907 (10th Cir. 1976): Abstention to prevent duplicative litigation between state and federal courts; reversed by the Supreme Court.
Thompson v. Johnson County Community College , 108 F. 3d 1388 (10th Cir. 1997): Worker privacy in bathrooms or changing rooms.
United States v. Andrus , 483 F.3d 711 (10th. Cir. 2007): Criminal defendant's father had the apparent authority to consent to search of defendant's computer.
Doe v. Shurtleff , 628 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2010): State law requiring sex offenders to register their internet identifiers with the state upheld as constitutional.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013): Corporation is a person who has religious freedom.

Eleventh Circuit

Miles v. City Council of Augusta, Georgia , 710 F.2d 1542 (11th Cir. 1983): Exhibition of a "talking cat" was an occupation for the purposes of municipal licensing law.
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County , 827 F.2d 684 (11th Cir. 1987): Teaching of ideas associated with secular humanism does not constitute endorsement of a religion.
Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc. , 194 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 1999): Original delivery of Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech was legally a "performance", rather than a "general publication" of the speech, with the text still being covered by copyright.
Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Co. , 252 F. 3d 1165 (11th Cir. 2001): Parody as a fair use defense to copyright infringement.
Arce v. García , 434 F.3d 1254 (11th Cir. 2006): Salvadoran plaintiffs who had been tortured in their home country could sue the responsible Ecuadoran government officials under the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) and the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).

D.C. Circuit

United States v. Fenwick , 25 F. Cas. 1062; 4 Cranch C.C. 675 (1836): Right to make legal argument to jury.
Stettinius v. United States , 22 F. Cas. 1322; 5 Cranch C.C. 573 (1839): Right to make legal argument to jury.
Frye v. United States , 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923): Established that the admissibility of expert testimony must be based on scientific methods that are sufficiently established and accepted.
Edwards v. Habib , 397 F.2d 687 (D.C. Cir. 1968): Established the tenant's defense of retaliatory eviction.
Javins v. First National Realty Corp. , 428 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1970): Established warranty of habitability.
Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Commission , 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971): National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires EPA to evaluate environmental impact of nuclear power plants, even if review is not requested.
Canterbury v. Spence , 464 F.2d. 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972): In medical malpractices cases, informed consent is required of the patient and no expert is required for the case to be heard by a jury.
Acree v. Republic of Iraq , 370 F.3d 41 (D.C. Cir. 2004): Established the FSIA did not create new causes of action against foreign states.
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo , 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005): Applicability of laches defense to disparagement claims.
Colorado River Indian Tribes v. National Indian Gaming Commission , 05-5402 (D.C. Cir. 2006): National Indian Gaming Commission doesn't have oversight jurisdiction in regulating Class II or Class III games in Class III Indian casinos.
Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia , 489 F.3d 376 (D.C. Cir. 2007) : Regarding surgical treatment for the mentally incompetent who are unable to give informed consent.

Federal Circuit (and its predecessor courts)

State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. , 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998): An invention was eligible for patent protection if it involved some practical application and "produces a useful, concrete and tangible result". Later overturned by another decision.
Jazz Photo Corp. v. United States International Trade Commission , 264 F. 3d 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2001): Repair and reconstruction of patented items is permissible under the patent law.
Schism v. United States , 316 F.3d 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc): Military could not be held to promises made by recruiters of lifetime health care for enlistees, where Congress did not provide for such.
Buchanan v. Nicholson , 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006): Competent lay evidence can be sufficient to establish a service-connection award without any contemporaneous medical evidence.
In re Bilski , 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc): Machine-or-transformation test is the sole applicable test for patent-eligible subject matter, overturning State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc.; decision was affirmed with modifications by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Court of Claims

Williams & Wilkins Co. v. United States , 487 F.2d 1345 (Ct. Cl. 1973), per curiam aff'd by an equally divided court, 420 U.S. 376 (1975): Liability for copyright infringement for photocopying of journal articles.

Related Research Articles

Software copyright is the application of copyright in law to machine-readable software. While many of the legal principles and policy debates concerning software copyright have close parallels in other domains of copyright law, there are a number of distinctive issues that arise with software. This article primarily focuses on topics particular to software.

Copyright misuse is an equitable defence to copyright infringement in the United States based upon the doctrine of unclean hands. The misuse doctrine provides that the copyright holder engaged in abusive or improper conduct in exploiting or enforcing the copyright will be precluded from enforcing his rights against the infringer. Copyright misuse is often comparable to and draws from the older and more established doctrine of patent misuse, which bars a patentee from obtaining relief for infringement when he extends his patent rights beyond the limited monopoly conferred by the law.

Under the Noerr–Pennington doctrine, private entities are immune from liability under the antitrust laws for attempts to influence the passage or enforcement of laws, even if the laws they advocate for would have anticompetitive effects. The doctrine is grounded in the First Amendment protection of political speech, and "upon a recognition that the antitrust laws, 'tailored as they are for the business world, are not at all appropriate for application in the political arena.'"

In re Aimster Copyright Litigation, 334 F.3d 643, was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit addressed copyright infringement claims brought against Aimster, concluding that a preliminary injunction against the file-sharing service was appropriate because the copyright owners were likely to prevail on their claims of contributory infringement, and that the services could have non-infringing users was insufficient reason to reverse the district court's decision. The appellate court also noted that the defendant could have limited the quantity of the infringements if it had eliminated an encryption system feature, and if it had monitored the use of its systems. This made it so that the defense did not fall within the safe harbor of 17 U.S.C. § 512(i). and could not be used as an excuse to not know about the infringement. In addition, the court decided that the harm done to the plaintiff was irreparable and outweighed any harm to the defendant created by the injunction.

White-Smith Music Publishing Company v. Apollo Company, 209 U.S. 1 (1908), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that manufacturers of music rolls for player pianos did not have to pay royalties to the composers. The ruling was based on a holding that the piano rolls were not copies of the plaintiffs' copyrighted sheet music, but were instead parts of the machine that reproduced the music.

Secondary liability, or indirect infringement, arises when a party materially contributes to, facilitates, induces, or is otherwise responsible for directly infringing acts carried out by another party. The US has statutorily codified secondary liability rules for trademarks and patents, but for matters relating to copyright, this has solely been a product of case law developments. In other words, courts, rather than Congress, have been the primary developers of theories and policies concerning secondary liability.

Dennis G. Jacobs is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

<i>Administrative Law Review</i> Academic journal

The Administrative Law Review was established in 1948 and is the official law journal of the American Bar Association Section of Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice.

An implied license is an unwritten license which permits a party to do something that would normally require the express permission of another party. Implied licenses may arise by operation of law from actions by the licensor which lead the licensee to believe that it has the necessary permission.

United States v. Weitzenhoff, 35 F.3d 1275 is a legal opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that addresses the confusing mens rea requirement of a federal environmental law that imposed criminal sanctions on certain polluters. The main significance of the court's opinion was that it interpreted the word "knowingly" in the statute to mean a general awareness of the wrongfulness of one's actions or the likelihood of illegality, rather than an actual knowledge of the statute being violated. Circuit Court Judge Betty Binns Fletcher authored the majority's legal opinion in this case.

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge the common law doctrine of aboriginal title. Native American tribes and nations establish aboriginal title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a "long time." Individuals may also establish aboriginal title, if their ancestors held title as individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of aboriginal title is not limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may not be alienated, except to the federal government or with the approval of Congress. Aboriginal title is distinct from the lands Native Americans own in fee simple and occupy under federal trust.

Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 320 F.3d 1317, was a U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit case involving Harold L. Bowers and Baystate Technologies over patent infringement, copyright infringement, and breach of contract. In the case, the court found that Baystate had breached their contract by reverse engineering Bower's program, something expressly prohibited by a shrink wrap license that Baystate entered into upon purchasing a copy of Bower's software. This case is notable for establishing that license agreements can preempt fair use rights as well as expand the rights of copyright holders beyond those codified in US federal law.

Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attached to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees. Infringement may occur when one party, the "infringer", uses a trademark which is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark owned by another party, especially in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services which the registration covers. An owner of a trademark may commence civil legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registered trademark. In the United States, the Trademark Counterfeiting Act of 1984 criminalized the intentional trade in counterfeit goods and services.

Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int'l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791, was a 2002 en banc 9-6 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, about the scope of copyright protection for building codes and by implication other privately drafted laws adopted by states and municipal governments. A three-fifths majority of the court's fifteen judges held that copyright protection no longer applied to model codes once they were enacted into law.

The Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) is a United States copyright law that attempted to abrogate sovereign immunity of states for copyright infringement. The CRCA amended 17 USC 511(a):

In general. Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity, shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal Court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for a violation of any of the exclusive rights of a copyright owner provided by sections 106 through 122, for importing copies of phonorecords in violation of section 602, or for any other violation under this title.

The misappropriation doctrine is a U.S. legal theory conferring a "quasi-property right" on a person who invests "labor, skill, and money" to create an intangible asset. The right operates against another person "endeavoring to reap where it has not sown" by "misappropriating" the value of the asset. The quoted language and the legal principle come from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918), also known as INS v. AP or simply the INS case.

Walker Process Equipment, Inc. v. Food Machinery & Chemical Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (1965), was a 1965 decision of the United States Supreme Court that held, for the first time, that enforcement of a fraudulently procured patent violated the antitrust laws and provided a basis for a claim of treble damages if it caused a substantial anticompetitive effect.

Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but induces or authorizes another person to directly infringe the copyright.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.

v t e United States federal courts
Supreme Court of the United States United States courts of appeals List of United States district and territorial courts

Courts of appeals	1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th DC Federal
District courts	Alabama (M, N, S) Alaska Arizona Arkansas (E, W) California (C, E, N, S) Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida (M, N, S) Georgia (M, N, S) Hawaii Idaho Illinois (C, N, S) Indiana (N, S) Iowa (N, S) Kansas Kentucky (E, W) Louisiana (E, M, W) Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan (E, W) Minnesota Mississippi (N, S) Missouri (E, W) Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York (E, N, S, W) North Carolina (E, M, W) North Dakota Ohio (N, S) Oklahoma (E, N, W) Oregon Pennsylvania (E, M, W) Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee (E, M, W) Texas (E, N, S, W) Utah Vermont Virginia (E, W) Washington (E, W) West Virginia (N, S) Wisconsin (E, W) Wyoming
Specialty courts	Court of International Trade Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation Alien Terrorist Removal Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
Territorial courts	Guam Northern Mariana Islands Virgin Islands
Extinct courts	Former United States district courts District of Orleans District of Potomac Eastern District of Illinois District of the Canal Zone District of China District of Berlin
Note	American Samoa does not have a district court or federal territorial court; federal matters there go to the District of Columbia, Hawaii, or its own Supreme Court.