United States magistrate judge

Last updated

In United States federal courts, magistrate judges are judges appointed to assist U.S. district court judges in the performance of their duties. Magistrate judges generally oversee first appearances of criminal defendants, set bail, and conduct other administrative duties. The position of magistrate judge or magistrate also exists in some unrelated state courts (see below).

Contents

Magistrate judges are appointed by a majority vote of the federal district judges of a particular district and serve terms of eight years if full-time, or four years if part-time, and may be reappointed. [1] As of March 2009 there were 517 full-time and 42 part-time authorized magistrate judgeships, as well as one position combining magistrate judge and clerk of court. [2]

Authority

The magistrate judge's seat is not a separate court; the authority that a magistrate judge exercises is the jurisdiction of the district court itself, delegated to the magistrate judge by the district judges of the court under governing statutory authority, local rules of court, or court orders. Rather than fixing the duties of magistrate judges nationwide, the Federal Magistrates Act allows each district court to assign duties to the magistrate judges as fits the needs of that court. [3] : 7 

In criminal proceedings, magistrate judges preside over misdemeanor and petty offense cases, and as to all criminal cases (felony and misdemeanor) may issue search warrants, arrest warrants, and summonses, accept criminal complaints, conduct initial appearance proceedings and detention hearings, set bail or other conditions of release or detention, hold preliminary hearings and examinations, administer oaths, conduct extradition proceedings, and conduct evidentiary hearings on motions to suppress evidence in felony cases for issuance of reports and recommendations to the district judge.

The Supreme Court has held in Peretz v. United States that magistrate judges may supervise the jury selection in a felony trial unless a party objects. [4]

In civil proceedings, magistrate judges typically manage discovery and other pretrial matters. They are authorized to issue orders in pretrial matters as long as the order is not dispositive of the case as a whole (for example, an order granting summary judgment is not within their purview). They may also be assigned to write reports and recommendations to the district judge as to dispositive matters. With the consent of the parties, they may adjudicate civil cases in the same manner as a district judge, including presiding over jury or non-jury trials.

Assignment

Normally, a newly filed federal action is assigned by the clerk of the district court to a district judge and a magistrate judge (whose initials are then appended to the case number in most districts). In some districts, magistrate judges are assigned to work with certain district judges, although they may not do so on all categories of cases. In other districts, magistrate judges are randomly assigned to cases. The clerk runs a random selection procedure (in some courts, spinning a wheel [5] ) based on a list of all available district judges and then runs the same procedure based on a list of all available magistrate judges.

In a few districts, starting with the District of Oregon in 1984, magistrate judges participate together with district judges on a unified list of judges available for new cases. [6] A newly filed case can then be assigned to a magistrate judge for all purposes, subject to the ability of any party in the action to affirmatively decline consent to that procedure within a certain time period. Filing of such a declination causes the magistrate judge to return the case to the court clerk for a standard assignment to a district-magistrate pair.

Review by an Article III tribunal

Because Article III of the United States Constitution vests the judicial powers in courts to which the judges are appointed for life (and which are therefore called Article III tribunals), decisions of a magistrate judge are subject to review and either approval, modification or reversal by a district judge of that court – except in civil cases where the parties consent in advance to allow the magistrate judge to exercise the jurisdiction of the district judge, and in which case appeals from the decision of the magistrate judge are heard by the United States courts of appeals. Magistrate judges therefore operate under the authority of United States Congress to appoint "inferior courts", set forth in Article I, making them Article I judges. [7]

The Supreme Court most thoroughly delineated the permissible scope of Article I tribunals in Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , [8] striking down the statute that created the original U.S. bankruptcy court. The Court held in that opinion that the framers of the Constitution had developed a scheme of separation of powers which clearly required that the judicial branch be kept independent of the other two branches via the mechanism of lifetime appointments. However, the Court also found that Congress has the power under Article I to create adjunct tribunals, so long as the "essential attributes of judicial power" stay in Article III courts. This power derives from two sources. First, when Congress creates rights, it can require those asserting such rights to go through an Article I tribunal. Second, Congress can create non-Article III tribunals to help Article III courts deal with their workload, but only if the Article I tribunals are under the control of the Article III courts. The magistrate judges fall within this category of "adjunct" tribunals. All actions heard in an Article I tribunal are subject to de novo review in the supervising Article III court, which retains the exclusive power to make and enforce final judgments. [7]

The Supreme Court later stated, in Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor , [9] that parties to litigation could voluntarily waive their right to an Article III tribunal, and thereby submit themselves to a binding judgment from an Article I tribunal.

History

The office of United States magistrate judge was established by the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968. [10] Its foundation is the United States commissioner system, established in 1793. Commissioners were previously used in federal courts to try petty offense cases committed on federal property, to issue search warrants and arrest warrants, to determine bail for federal defendants and to conduct other initial proceedings in federal criminal cases. The Federal Magistrates Act of 1968, as amended, was enacted by the Congress to create a new federal judicial officer who would (1) assume all the former duties of the commissioners and (2) conduct a wide range of judicial proceedings to expedite the disposition of the civil and criminal caseloads of the United States district courts.

In 1979, Congress expanded federal magistrates' authority to include all misdemeanors recognized by the federal criminal code. Magistrates' titles changed again in 1990, when they became "magistrate judges," symbolizing the ever-increasing importance of their work. [11] One view is that the system has worked relatively well in the last 30 years, and has tended to shift the federal courts' caseload to the desired balance. [12] Other legal observers have criticized the increasing powers of magistrate judges, who are neither appointed by the President nor confirmed by the Senate. [13] On the other hand, the selection of a magistrate judge is a merit-based process which, by statute, requires public notice of a vacancy and the appointment of a merit selection panel which includes both lawyers and at least two non-lawyers. The panel is required to consider the attributes of each candidate, including scholarship, experience, knowledge of the court system, and personal attributes such as intelligence, honesty and morality, maturity, demeanor, temperament, and ability to work with others. Applicants for the post must be personally interviewed and recommended[ by whom? ] for the position. Magistrate judges are compensated at a slightly lower scale than district judges and do not benefit from the full array of benefits accorded to district judges, so increased magistrate judge involvement in judicial matters has a cost-savings effect for the federal courts.

State courts

A number of states have judges titled as magistrates. These positions are unrelated to the federal office, and function according to the laws of the specific state.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States district court</span> Trial court of the U.S. federal judiciary

The United States district courts are the trial courts of the U.S. federal judiciary. There is one district court for each federal judicial district. Each district covers one U.S. state or a portion of a state. There is at least one federal courthouse in each district, and many districts have more than one. District court decisions are appealed to the U.S. court of appeals for the circuit in which they reside, except for certain specialized cases that are appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Justice of the peace</span> Judicial officer elected or appointed to keep the peace and perform minor civic jobs

A justice of the peace (JP) is a judicial officer of a lower court, elected or appointed by means of a commission to keep the peace. In past centuries the term commissioner of the peace was often used with the same meaning. Depending on the jurisdiction, such justices dispense summary justice or merely deal with local administrative applications in common law jurisdictions. Justices of the peace are appointed or elected from the citizens of the jurisdiction in which they serve, and are usually not required to have any formal legal education in order to qualify for the office. Some jurisdictions have varying forms of training for JPs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Magistrate</span> Officer of the state, usually judge

The term magistrate is used in a variety of systems of governments and laws to refer to a civilian officer who administers the law. In ancient Rome, a magistratus was one of the highest ranking government officers, and possessed both judicial and executive powers. In other parts of the world, such as China, magistrate is a word applied to a person responsible for administration over a particular geographic area. Today, in some jurisdictions, a magistrate is a judicial officer who hears cases in a lower court, and typically deals with more minor or preliminary matters. In other jurisdictions, magistrates are typically trained volunteers appointed to deal with criminal and civil matters in their local areas.

In the United States, a federal judge is a judge who serves on a court established under Article Three of the U.S. Constitution. Such judges include the chief justice and associate justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, circuit judges of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, district judges of the U.S. District Courts, and judges of the U.S. Court of International Trade. These judges are often called "Article Three judges".

A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, offence triable either way, or wobbler is one of the special class offences in the common law jurisdictions where the case may be prosecuted either summarily or on indictment. In the United States, an alternative misdemeanor/felony offense lists both county jail and state prison as possible punishment, for example, theft. Similarly, a wobblette is a crime that can be charged either as a misdemeanor or an infraction, for example, in California, violating COVID-19 safety precautions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Hong Kong</span> Law courts in the special administrative region of China

The Judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is the judicial branch of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Under the Basic Law of Hong Kong, it exercises the judicial power of the Region and is independent of the executive and legislative branches of the Government. The courts in Hong Kong hear and adjudicate all prosecutions and civil disputes, including all public and private law matters.

The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primarily of the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts. It also includes a variety of other lesser federal tribunals.

A court clerk is an officer of the court whose responsibilities include maintaining records of a court and administering oaths to witnesses, jurors, and grand jurors as well as performing some quasi-secretarial duties. The records management duties of a court clerk including the acceptance of documents for filing with the court to become part of the court's official records, preserving and protecting those records, providing the general public with access to those records, and maintaining the docket, register of actions, and/or minutes of the court which list all filings and events in each case. These duties are important because the availability of legal relief often depends upon the timely filing of documents before applicable deadlines.

The Alaska Court System is the unified, centrally administered, and totally state-funded judicial system for the state of Alaska. The Alaska District Courts are the primary misdemeanor trial courts, the Alaska Superior Courts are the primary felony trial courts, and the Alaska Supreme Court and the Alaska Court of Appeals are the primary appellate courts. The chief justice of the Alaska Supreme Court is the administrative head of the Alaska Court System.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Courts-martial of the United States</span> Trials conducted by the U.S. military

Courts-martial of the United States are trials conducted by the U.S. military or by state militaries. Most commonly, courts-martial are convened to try members of the U.S. military for violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). They can also be convened for other purposes, including military tribunals and the enforcement of martial law in an occupied territory. Federal courts-martial are governed by the rules of procedure and evidence laid out in the Manual for Courts-Martial, which contains the Rules for Courts-Martial (RCM), Military Rules of Evidence, and other guidance. State courts-martial are governed according to the laws of the state concerned. The American Bar Association has issued a Model State Code of Military Justice, which has influenced the relevant laws and procedures in some states.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New York City Criminal Court</span> Court in New York, United States

The Criminal Court of the City of New York is a court of the State Unified Court System in New York City that handles misdemeanors and lesser offenses, and also conducts arraignments and preliminary hearings in felony cases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Superior Court of the District of Columbia</span> Trial court for the District of Columbia

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, commonly referred to as DC Superior Court, is the trial court for the District of Columbia, in the United States. It hears cases involving criminal and civil law, as well as family court, landlord and tenant, probate, tax and driving violations. All appeals of Superior Court decisions go to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Northern Pipeline Construction Company v. Marathon Pipe Line Company, 458 U.S. 50 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that Article III jurisdiction could not be conferred on non-Article III courts.

Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991), was a Supreme Court of the United States case. The Court affirmed that a defendant in a federal criminal trial on a felony charge must affirmatively object to the supervising of jury selection by a magistrate judge, ruling that it is not enough that the defendant merely acquiesce to the magistrate's involvement in his case for a court to reverse a conviction for this reason.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of New York</span> Judicial branch of the New York state government

The Judiciary of New York is the judicial branch of the Government of New York, comprising all the courts of the State of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Massachusetts District Court</span>

The Massachusetts District Court is a trial court in Massachusetts that hears a wide range of criminal, civil, housing, juvenile, mental health, and other types of cases.

Iowa District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Iowa.

The Judiciary of Virginia is defined under the Constitution and law of Virginia and is composed of the Supreme Court of Virginia and subordinate courts, including the Court of Appeals, the Circuit Courts, and the General District Courts. Its administration is headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council, the Committee on District Courts, the Judicial Conferences, the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, and various other offices and officers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Montana District Courts</span> American state trial courts in Montana

Montana District Courts are the state trial courts of general jurisdiction in the U.S. state of Montana. Montana District Courts have original jurisdiction over most civil cases, civil actions involving monetary claims against the state, criminal felony cases, naturalization proceedings, probate cases, and most writs. They may also hear certain special actions and proceedings, and oversee a narrowly-defined class of ballot issues. Montana District Courts also have limited appellate jurisdiction regarding cases that arise in Justice Courts, City Courts, and Municipal Courts as well as Judicial review of decisions by state administrative law tribunals that fall under the Montana Administrative Procedures Act.

Magistrate judge, in U.S. state courts, is a title used for various kinds of judges, typically holding a low level of office with powers and responsibilities more limited than state court judges of general jurisdiction.

References

  1. ↑ "28 U.S. Code § 631 - Appointment and tenure". U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Retrieved 2023-07-05.
  2. ↑ "Magistrate Judgeships". Federal Judicial Center . Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  3. ↑ McCabe, Peter G. (August 2014). "A Guide to the Federal Magistrate Judge System" (PDF). Arlington, Virginia: Federal Bar Association . Retrieved 2015-06-26.
  4. ↑ Peretz v. United States, 501 U.S. 923 (1991) (Magistrates may supervise jury selection for a felony trial with consent of the parties).
  5. ↑ Bharara, Preet (2019). Doing Justice. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. p. 233. ISBN   9780525521136.
  6. ↑ "Consenting to the Jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the District of Oregon". U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. Retrieved May 21, 2024.
  7. 1 2 Baker, Tim A. (2005). "The Expanding Role of Magistrate Judges in the Federal Courts". Valparaiso University Law Review. 39: 661–692. Retrieved August 11, 2022.
  8. ↑ Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. , 458 U.S. 50 (1982).
  9. ↑ Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor , 478 U.S. 833 (1986).
  10. ↑ Pub. L. Tooltip Public Law (United States)  90–578, 82  Stat.   1107 (1968), codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.   § 604, 631-631, and 18 U.S.C.   §§ 3401 – 3402
  11. ↑ {{ cite web |title=Magistrate Judges Reach the Half Century Mark
  12. ↑ Anthony Marcum, Why Federal Magistrate Judges Can Improve Judicial Capacity, 88 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1009 (2020)
  13. ↑ "FAQs: Federal Judges". United States Courts. Retrieved 2022-09-01.
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.