Understanding the Structure of Federal Courts in the U.S.

Posted on March 22, 2025 by State of the Nation

Submitted by American Intelligence Media

Below is an explanation of how the federal courts (excluding the Supreme Court which ) were created, how they are funded, and which branch of government established them. This covers the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeals (circuit courts), and other specialized federal courts as requested. A list of those specific courts are at the bottom of the page.

Then, I offer recommendations for legal and constitutional methods of shutting down LEGISLATIVE courts. If PLAN A fails due to Congress uncooperation, AIM offers PLANs B and C, one of which would be IMMEDIATE and DIRECT.

Next, I put on my teacher hat on and provide a lesson plan for homeschool parents to use the current event to teach important civics lessons. If you didn’t receive a proper civics lesson in high school, you might want to run through the study questions and make sure you are constitutionally correct about President Trump’s handling of judicial insurrection.

First, let’s look at how federal courts were created:

The federal courts, excluding the Supreme Court, were established by the legislative branch—specifically, the U.S. Congress—under the authority granted by Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. This section states that “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Additionally, some specialized courts were created under Article I, which allows Congress to create “tribunals inferior to the supreme Court” for specific purposes. Here’s how each type of court came into being:

U.S. District Courts (94)

Creation: The district courts were first established by the Judiciary Act of 1789, passed by the First Congress on September 24, 1789. This act created 13 district courts aligned with the original states and their geographic boundaries. Over time, as the United States expanded with new states and territories, Congress passed additional legislation to create new district courts or reorganize existing ones. For example, the Judiciary Act of 1801 and subsequent acts in the 19th and 20th centuries adjusted the number and jurisdiction of these courts to reflect population growth and territorial changes.
Process: Congress legislates the establishment of each district court, defining its jurisdiction and geographic scope. The number grew to 94 as new states joined the Union and larger states were subdivided into multiple districts (e.g., California has four districts).
Authority: These are Article III courts, meaning they are part of the constitutional judicial system with judges appointed for life by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

U.S. Courts of Appeals (13 Circuit Courts)

Creation: The circuit courts of appeals were established by the Judiciary Act of 1891 (also known as the Evarts Act), enacted by Congress on March 3, 1891. Before this, appeals from district courts were heard by circuit courts (which included Supreme Court justices “riding circuit”) or went directly to the Supreme Court, overburdening the system. The 1891 act created nine appellate courts to handle appeals from district courts, reducing the Supreme Court’s workload. The Tenth Circuit was added in 1929 when Congress split the Eighth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit was created in 1981 by splitting the Fifth Circuit. The D.C. Circuit and Federal Circuit were established separately for specific purposes.
Special Cases:
- D.C. Circuit: Created by Congress in 1893 as the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, later reorganized under the current name.
- Federal Circuit: Established by the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982, merging the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the appellate division of the U.S. Court of Claims.
Process: Congress legislated the creation of each circuit, defining their geographic or subject-matter jurisdiction.
Authority: These are also Article III courts with lifetime-appointed judges.

Other Federal Courts (Specialized Courts)

These courts were created by Congress to handle specific types of cases, often under Article I rather than Article III, meaning their judges may serve fixed terms rather than lifetime appointments. Examples include:

U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims: Established by the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-687), passed by Congress to provide judicial review of veterans’ benefits decisions.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces: Created by Congress under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in 1950 (Public Law 81-506) as the Court of Military Appeals, later renamed.
U.S. Tax Court: Originally established as the Board of Tax Appeals in 1924 by the Revenue Act of 1924, it was renamed and reorganized as a court by the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-172).
U.S. Court of International Trade: Created by the Customs Courts Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-417), though its predecessor, the U.S. Customs Court, dates back to 1890.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims: Established by the Tucker Act of 1887 (Public Law 49-873), evolving from the earlier Court of Claims created in 1855; reorganized in 1982.
Process: Congress passed specific statutes to create these courts, tailoring their jurisdiction to address niche federal issues (e.g., taxes, trade, military justice).
Authority: Most are Article I courts, except the Court of International Trade, which was designated an Article III court in 1956.

In all cases, the legislative branch (Congress) exercised its constitutional power to “ordain and establish” these courts, determining their structure, jurisdiction, and number of judges.

Closing the federal court system—excluding the Supreme Court, which is constitutionally mandated—while adhering to constitutional and legal constraints is a complex challenge. The U.S. Constitution under Article III, Section 1, vests judicial power in “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This gives Congress the authority to create and, by extension, eliminate these inferior courts (district courts, courts of appeals, and specialized courts).

The most direct and constitutionally permissible way to eliminate the federal court system involves Congress exercising its legislative power to abolish these courts, coupled with practical steps to wind down their operations. Below is the best plan for the quickest constitutional and legal approach to achieve this.

Plan A: Eliminate the Federal Court System Through Congressional action

In all cases below, we are not recommending that the Supreme Court be closed, de-funded or altered. The Supreme Court was established by the original contract, the U. S. Constitution. We are only referring to the congressional court system.

Step 1: Congressional Legislation to Abolish Inferior Courts

Action: Congress passes a single, comprehensive statute—the “Federal Courts Abolition Act” (a hypothetical name)—to repeal all prior legislation establishing the inferior federal courts. This would include:
- Repealing the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent acts creating the 94 district courts.
- Repealing the Judiciary Act of 1891 and related statutes establishing the 13 courts of appeals (including the Federal Circuit).
- Repealing statutes creating specialized courts (e.g., Veterans’ Judicial Review Act of 1988, Customs Courts Act of 1980, Tucker Act of 1887, etc.).
Legal Basis: Article III grants Congress plenary power to “ordain and establish” inferior courts, implying the authority to disestablish them. Historical precedent exists: Congress has altered court structures before, such as abolishing the Commerce Court in 1913 (Act of October 22, 1913, 38 Stat. 219) and reorganizing circuits (e.g., splitting the Fifth Circuit in 1981).
Speed: With a unified Congress (majorities in both House and Senate), this could be drafted, debated, and passed within weeks under expedited procedures (e.g., suspending rules in the House or invoking cloture in the Senate to limit debate). A simple majority in both chambers is sufficient, assuming no filibuster delays.

Step 2: Presidential Approval

Action: The President signs the Federal Courts Abolition Act into law. If the President vetoes it, Congress could override the veto with a two-thirds majority in both chambers.
Speed: Presidential action typically occurs within 10 days of receiving the bill (per Article I, Section 7). A cooperative President could sign it immediately, making this step nearly instantaneous.

Step 3: Immediate Cessation of New Jurisdiction

Action: The legislation specifies that, upon enactment, the inferior courts lose jurisdiction over new cases. Existing cases are either:
- Transferred to the Supreme Court (which retains constitutional authority), though its capacity is limited.
- Dismissed without prejudice, allowing refiling in state courts if jurisdiction exists.
- Terminated if no alternative forum is available (e.g., exclusive federal matters like patents).
Legal Basis: Congress can define the jurisdiction of inferior courts (per Article III, Section 2, and the Exceptions Clause), as seen in cases like Sheldon v. Sill (1850), where the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s power to limit federal court jurisdiction.
Speed: This takes effect the moment the law is signed, halting new filings instantly.

Step 4: Wind Down Existing Operations

Action: The legislation mandates a rapid wind-down:
- Judges’ lifetime tenure (for Article III courts) ends with the courts’ abolition, as their offices no longer exist. Precedent: When Congress abolished the Commerce Court, its judges were reassigned or retired.
- Article I court judges (e.g., Tax Court) lose their fixed-term appointments immediately upon repeal of their enabling statutes.
- Staff (clerks, probation officers, etc.) are terminated or reassigned to the Supreme Court or other federal agencies.
- Courthouses are sold, leased, or repurposed by the General Services Administration (GSA).
Funding: Congress defunds the judiciary’s budget (except the Supreme Court) via the next appropriations bill, effective immediately or at the fiscal year’s end (e.g., October 1, 2025, for FY 2026). The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) is dissolved or scaled back to support only the Supreme Court.
Speed: Wind-down could begin within days of enactment, with a full shutdown targeted within 30–90 days, depending on case disposition and logistics.

Step 5: Address Constitutional and Practical Challenges

Judicial Tenure: Article III protects judges’ salaries and tenure “during good Behaviour,” but if their courts no longer exist, their positions vanish legally. The Supreme Court upheld this in Stuart v. Laird (1803), affirming Congress’s power to abolish judicial offices.
Pending Cases: Transferring cases to state courts or the Supreme Court avoids due process issues, though exclusive federal matters (e.g., bankruptcy, admiralty) would lapse unless Congress delegates them elsewhere.
Public Backlash: Political resistance could delay passage, but this plan assumes a compliant Congress and President.

Timeline for Quickest Execution

Day 1–14: Congress drafts and passes the Federal Courts Abolition Act (assuming unified control and expedited rules).
Day 15: President signs the bill into law.
Day 16: Courts lose jurisdiction over new cases; wind-down begins.
Day 17–45: Existing cases are transferred, dismissed, or resolved; staff and facilities are phased out.
Day 46: Federal court system (except Supreme Court) ceases to exist operationally.

Total Time: Approximately 45 days, assuming no filibuster, veto, or legal challenges delay implementation.

Why This Is the Most Direct Approach

Constitutional Compliance: Relies on Congress’s explicit Article III power to eliminate inferior courts, avoiding amendments (which take years).
Legislative Simplicity: A single statute can repeal all prior court-creating laws, bypassing piecemeal dismantling.
Speed: Leverages Congress’s ability to act quickly with majority support and a cooperative President, minimizing bureaucratic or judicial resistance.

Potential Obstacles and Mitigations

Filibuster in Senate: Requires 60 votes to overcome unless the filibuster is eliminated (nuclear option, needing only 51 votes).
Judicial Review: The Supreme Court could theoretically intervene if abolition violates due process, but it lacks power to reinstate abolished courts (see Ex parte McCardle, 1869).
Case Backlog: Dumping cases on the Supreme Court or state courts could overwhelm them, but the legislation could authorize temporary administrative tribunals (Article I) to handle residuals.

This plan assumes political will and coordination, making it the fastest constitutional and legal path to eliminate the federal court system below the Supreme Court. Without such unity, the process could stretch into months or years due to debate and litigation.

Plan B: President to Use LIMITED Constitutional, Financial, and Legal Methods to Eliminate Courts

If Congress lacks the will or votes to close the federal court system, the Executive Branch, led by the President, has limited direct constitutional or legal authority to unilaterally shut down these courts.

The federal courts—district courts, courts of appeals, and specialized courts—were created by Congress under Article III, Section 1, and their funding and structure are controlled through the legislative process.

However, the President does have some indirect tools and influence within the executive’s constitutional powers that could disrupt or effectively hinder the federal court system’s operations. Below is an analysis of the Executive Office’s powers in this context, including whether the President can end funding distribution.

Constitutional and Legal Constraints on Executive Power

The U.S. Constitution assigns the creation and maintenance of inferior federal courts to Congress (Article III, Section 1: “such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish”). Additionally, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” meaning only Congress can appropriate funds. The President’s authority is primarily executive (Article II), focused on enforcing laws, not creating or abolishing courts or controlling their budgets directly. Thus, the Executive Branch cannot legally abolish federal courts or terminate their funding without congressional action. However, the President can exploit certain levers to impede their functionality.

Executive Powers to Disrupt Federal Courts

Refusal to Nominate or Appoint Judges

(These actions would not be helpful to the current administration.)

Power: Under Article II, Section 2, the President nominates federal judges, subject to Senate confirmation. The President could refuse to nominate replacements for vacant judgeships in district courts, courts of appeals, and Article III specialized courts (e.g., Court of International Trade).
Impact: As of March 21, 2025, there are approximately 870 authorized Article III judgeships (94 district courts, 13 courts of appeals, and specialized courts). With natural attrition (retirements, deaths), vacancies could accumulate. For example, in 2021, there were about 70–80 vacancies at any given time under normal conditions. Without new appointments, courts could become understaffed, slowing case processing and creating backlogs.
Limitations: Existing judges serve for life under “good Behaviour” (Article III, Section 1), so this strategy only works over time as vacancies grow. It cannot immediately shut down courts, and the Senate could pressure the President by rejecting other appointees until judicial nominations resume.

2. Impoundment or Delay of Funding Distribution

Power: The President oversees the Treasury Department and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which manage the disbursement of appropriated funds. Historically, presidents have attempted to withhold funds (impoundment), as seen with President Nixon in the 1970s.
Can the President End Funding Distribution?: No, the President cannot legally end funding distribution permanently. Once Congress appropriates funds—e.g., via the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act—the executive is obligated to spend them as directed. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. §§ 683–688) limits this power, requiring the President to notify Congress within 45 days if funds are deferred and allowing Congress to override such actions via a resolution.
Workaround: The President could delay disbursement by:
- Directing OMB to slow administrative processes (e.g., paperwork delays for courthouse utilities or staff salaries).
- Proposing a rescission of judicial funds under the Impoundment Control Act, though Congress must approve this within 45 days, or the funds must be released.
Impact: Delays could disrupt court operations—e.g., unpaid staff might strike, or courthouses could face utility shutoffs—but courts could seek emergency injunctions from themselves or the Supreme Court to compel funding release, citing constitutional necessity (see Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 1952, on executive overreach).
Limitations: This is temporary and legally tenuous. The judiciary’s budget for FY 2025 (approximately $8.9 billion, excluding the Supreme Court) is already appropriated by March 21, 2025, and courts can operate on existing funds until exhausted.

3. Influence Over Budget Proposals

Power: The President submits an annual budget to Congress (Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, 31 U.S.C. § 1105). For FY 2026 (starting October 1, 2025), the President could propose zero funding for the federal courts (except the Supreme Court).
Impact: This signals intent to defund, pressuring Congress. However, the judiciary submits its budget request directly to Congress via the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), and Congress typically respects this independence. In practice, Congress could ignore the President’s proposal and appropriate funds anyway.
Limitations: Congress holds the “power of the purse” (Article I, Section 8), so this is persuasive, not binding. Historical examples (e.g., 2013 sequestration) show Congress adjusts judicial funding independently.

4. Executive Orders to Limit Court Access or Operations

Power: The President could issue an executive order under Article II authority to manage federal property or personnel, indirectly affecting courts. For example:
- Restricting U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) support, which provides court security, under the Department of Justice (DOJ).
- Directing the General Services Administration (GSA) to limit maintenance or access to federal courthouses.
Impact: Reduced security or closed facilities could halt court proceedings. For instance, if marshals refuse to escort judges or prisoners, criminal trials could stall.
Limitations: Courts rely on USMS and GSA, but judges could order compliance via contempt powers or seek Supreme Court intervention. This would also face legal challenges as an abuse of executive discretion (see Marbury v. Madison, 1803, on judicial independence).

5. Non-Enforcement of Court Orders

Power: The President controls the DOJ and federal law enforcement. Refusing to enforce federal court orders (e.g., injunctions, writs) could render courts ineffective.
Impact: If the executive ignores rulings—e.g., on removing terrorists from the country—courts lose practical authority, as seen in historical tensions like President Jackson’s alleged defiance of Worcester v. Georgia (1832).
Limitations: This risks a constitutional crisis, impeachment, or judicial escalation to the Supreme Court, which could compel enforcement. Public and congressional backlash would likely be swift.

Can the President Shut Down Federal Courts?

Directly: No. The President lacks constitutional authority to abolish courts or unilaterally end their funding, as these powers reside with Congress.
Indirectly: Yes, to an extent. Through delays in funding distribution, refusal to appoint judges, or operational interference (e.g., via USMS or GSA), the President could severely impair court functions. However, these actions are temporary, legally vulnerable, and cannot fully “shut down” the system without congressional consent.

If the goal is the quickest disruption without Congress, the President could combine:

Refuse all judicial nominations, creating vacancies over time.
Delay funding disbursement via OMB, citing emergency or administrative necessity, while proposing rescission to Congress.
Limit court support by redirecting USMS and GSA resources elsewhere (e.g., to border security or DOGE priorities).

Timeline: Disruption could begin within days (e.g., funding delays by late March 2025), but full paralysis would take months as vacancies mount and funds dwindle. Courts could limp along with existing judges and resources for 6–12 months, depending on reserves and congressional response.

Legal Risks: Courts or the AO could sue the executive in federal court (ironic but possible) or appeal to the Supreme Court, which could issue mandamus to compel funding or support (see United States v. Klein, 1872, on limits to executive interference).

PLAN C: Fire U. S. Attorneys/Federal Prosecutors

Our research indicates the Executive Office can fire U.S. Attorneys, who are federal prosecutors, as they serve at the President’s pleasure. Of course, we are not attorneys or constitutional law specialists so we welcome input here.

It seems that federal prosecutors are funded through the federal budget, with Congress appropriating funds to the Department of Justice.

Can the Executive Office Fire Federal Prosecutors?

Yes, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, can fire U.S. Attorneys, who are the primary federal prosecutors. They are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, serving at the President’s discretion. This means they can be removed without cause, and historical examples, such as President Donald Trump’s actions in early 2025 to fire Biden-era U.S. Attorneys, show this practice is common after a change in administration.

How Are They Funded?

Federal prosecutors are funded through the federal budget. Congress appropriates funds to the Department of Justice, and these funds are then allocated to the U.S. Attorneys’ offices via the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. This covers salaries, benefits, and operational costs, ensuring they can prosecute federal crimes effectively.

Executive Authority to Fire Federal Prosecutors

Federal prosecutors, particularly U.S. Attorneys, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint… all other Officers of the United States.” This Appointments Clause, combined with the President’s executive authority, implies that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, meaning they can be removed without cause.

Historical practice supports this interpretation. For instance, it has been routine since the Bill Clinton era for incoming presidents to replace U.S. Attorneys appointed by their predecessors. Recent examples include President Donald Trump’s actions in early 2025, where he ordered the justice department to fire all remaining U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Joe Biden. This move was described as an effort to “clean house” and align prosecutorial decisions with his administration’s agenda, with the dismissals not coordinated with the DOJ’s Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.

The case of Geoffrey S. Berman, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, in 2020, further illustrates this. Berman initially resisted removal by Attorney General William P. Barr but stepped down after the President invoked his authority. This shows that while the Attorney General may handle procedural aspects, the ultimate power to fire U.S. Attorneys lies with the President.

However, it’s important to distinguish U.S. Attorneys from special prosecutors or special counsels, such as Robert Mueller. Special counsels, appointed under regulations like those following the Starr investigation of Clinton, can only be disciplined or removed by the Attorney General for “good cause,” as noted in a fact-check by Jacksonville.com. This adds a layer of protection, but for regular U.S. Attorneys, no such restrictions exist.

Funding of Federal Prosecutors

Federal prosecutors, including U.S. Attorneys and their staff, are funded through the federal budget, specifically via appropriations to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ’s budget, which includes funding for the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, is determined through the annual appropriations process by Congress, as mandated by Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution, which states, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”

The Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), a component of the DOJ, manages the budgets for the 94 U.S. Attorneys’ offices, covering salaries, benefits, travel, equipment, and other operational expenses. Federal prosecutors’ salaries are determined by federal pay scales such as the General Schedule (GS), Administratively Determined (AD) Pay Plan, and Senior Executive Service (SES) paytables, all of which are funded by congressional appropriations.

The budget process involves the President submitting a budget proposal to Congress, which then appropriates funds through legislation like the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2025, the DOJ’s budget, including funding for U.S. Attorneys, was already appropriated by March 21, 2025, ensuring operational continuity. The Brennan Center for Justice discusses a model called Success-Oriented Funding, which ties government dollars to specific prosecutorial priorities, but this is a policy proposal, not the current funding mechanism, as seen in Brennan Center for Justice.

Summary of Key Facts

Aspect	Details
Can Executive Fire?	Yes, President can fire U.S. Attorneys at will, serving at his pleasure.
Special Counsel Removal	Requires Attorney General’s action for “good cause,” not direct firing.
Funding Source	Federal budget, appropriated by Congress to DOJ, managed by EOUSA.
Salary Scale	GS, AD, SES paytables, funded through appropriations.
Historical Precedent	Common for new presidents to replace U.S. Attorneys, e.g., Trump in 2025.

The Executive Office, specifically the President, can fire federal prosecutors (U.S. Attorneys) at any time, as they serve at his pleasure, with historical examples from early 2025 reinforcing this practice. They are funded through the federal budget, with Congress appropriating funds to the DOJ, managed by the EOUSA, covering salaries and operations via federal pay scales. This analysis, based on constitutional provisions and current practices, ensures a comprehensive understanding as of March 21, 2025.

AIM recommends a targeted first round of firings of U.S. Attorneys in the Washington D. C. area where activist judges continue to harass the Executive Office with their lower court rulings. Also fire U.S. prosecutors in other resistance areas like Hawaii, California, and Colorado that continue to wage LAWFARE against the American people with their unconstitutional attacks on President Trump.

Here’s some reference material used in preparing this civics lesson – some of these links come from legacy (propaganda) media so always read details and correct propaganda as needed:

Below is a quickie AIM School of Truth Civics Lesson on the American Federal Court System with a list of current courts.

Please educate and enlighten your downline as many people did not receive a proper civics education when they were in the Department of Education indoctrination schools. I taught civics subjects when I was a community college instructor, which included constitutional law and government classes. If you would like to add to the AIM civics lesson, please do so in the comment box.

How Are Federal Courts Funded?

The federal courts (remember, we are excluding the Supreme Court which is created by the Constitution as the third branch of government) are funded through the federal budget, which is proposed by the executive branch and appropriated by the legislative branch. Here’s the process:

Budget Proposal: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO), an agency within the judicial branch created by Congress in 1939, prepares an annual budget request for the federal judiciary. This includes funding for district courts, courts of appeals, and specialized courts (excluding the Supreme Court, which submits its own budget). The AO collaborates with court officials to estimate costs for salaries, facilities, technology, and operations.
Executive Role: The President, as head of the executive branch, includes the judiciary’s budget request in the annual federal budget proposal submitted to Congress, typically in February. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews the judiciary’s request but generally passes it through with minimal alteration, respecting judicial independence.
Congressional Appropriation: Congress, through its legislative authority, reviews, adjusts, and approves the judiciary’s funding as part of the annual appropriations process. The funding is allocated under the “Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act,” which covers the judicial branch. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees hold hearings, sometimes with testimony from judicial officials, before finalizing the budget.
Funding Sources: The money comes from general federal revenues (e.g., taxes, fees, and borrowing), not from the courts themselves, though some courts collect filing fees that offset a small portion of costs (e.g., district court fees).
Execution: Once appropriated, the AO distributes funds to individual courts for salaries (judges, clerks, staff), rent (courthouses), utilities, IT systems, and other expenses. Judges’ salaries are set by Congress and protected by Article III from being reduced during their tenure.

For fiscal year 2025 (covering March 21, 2025), the judiciary’s budget request was approximately $8.9 billion (excluding the Supreme Court), as reported in official budget documents submitted to Congress. This reflects operational costs for all lower federal courts, probation and pretrial services, and administrative support.

Which Branch of the Government Created Federal Courts?

Legislative Branch (Congress): All federal courts listed (district courts, courts of appeals, and specialized courts) were created by acts of Congress. The Constitution gave Congress the authority to establish “inferior courts,” and it has exercised this power since 1789 to build the federal judicial system.
Executive Branch: The President has no direct role in creating courts but influences them by nominating judges, subject to Senate confirmation. The executive also submits the judiciary’s budget request as part of the broader federal budget.
Judicial Branch: The judiciary itself does not create courts; it operates within the framework set by Congress. However, judicial leaders (e.g., the Judicial Conference) may recommend new courts or judgeships to Congress based on caseload needs.

Congress (legislative branch) created these courts through statutes, while funding involves collaboration between the legislative branch (appropriating funds) and the executive branch (proposing the budget), with the judiciary providing input on its needs.

Below is the list of the federal courts in the United States, including district courts, circuit courts (courts of appeals), and other federal courts as of March 21, 2025. This list excludes state courts and focuses solely on the federal judicial system. The federal court system consists of 94 district courts, 13 courts of appeals (12 regional circuits plus the Federal Circuit), and a few additional specialized federal courts. URLs are provided for each court where available, sourced from the official U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov) or other authoritative federal court pages.

U.S. District Courts

There are 94 active U.S. district courts, each serving a specific judicial district. Every state has at least one district court, and some states have multiple districts. The District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and three U.S. territories (Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands) also have district courts. These are the trial courts of the federal system, handling both civil and criminal cases.

Alabama

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama – www.alnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama – www.almd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama – www.alsd.uscourts.gov

Alaska

U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska – www.akd.uscourts.gov

Arizona

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona – www.azd.uscourts.gov

Arkansas

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas – www.ared.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas – www.arwd.uscourts.gov

California

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California – www.cand.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California – www.caed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California – www.cacd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California – www.casd.uscourts.gov

Colorado

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado – www.cod.uscourts.gov

Connecticut

U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut – www.ctd.uscourts.gov

Delaware

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware – www.ded.uscourts.gov

District of Columbia

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia – www.dcd.uscourts.gov

Florida

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida – www.flnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida – www.flmd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida – www.flsd.uscourts.gov

Georgia

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia – www.gand.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia – www.gamd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia – www.gasd.uscourts.gov

Guam

U.S. District Court for the District of Guam – www.gud.uscourts.gov

Hawaii

U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii – www.hid.uscourts.gov

Idaho

U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho – www.id.uscourts.gov

Illinois

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois – www.ilnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois – www.ilcd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois – www.ilsd.uscourts.gov

Indiana

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana – www.innd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana – www.insd.uscourts.gov

Iowa

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa – www.iand.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa – www.iasd.uscourts.gov

Kansas

U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas – www.ksd.uscourts.gov

Kentucky

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky – www.kyed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky – www.kywd.uscourts.gov

Louisiana

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana – www.laed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana – www.lamd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana – www.lawd.uscourts.gov

Maine

U.S. District Court for the District of Maine – www.med.uscourts.gov

Maryland

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland – www.mdd.uscourts.gov

Massachusetts

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts – www.mad.uscourts.gov

Michigan

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan – www.mied.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan – www.miwd.uscourts.gov

Minnesota

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota – www.mnd.uscourts.gov

Mississippi

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi – www.msnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi – www.mssd.uscourts.gov

Missouri

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri – www.moed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri – www.mowd.uscourts.gov

Montana

U.S. District Court for the District of Montana – www.mtd.uscourts.gov

Nebraska

U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska – www.ned.uscourts.gov

Nevada

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada – www.nvd.uscourts.gov

New Hampshire

U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire – www.nhd.uscourts.gov

New Jersey

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey – www.njd.uscourts.gov

New Mexico

U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico – www.nmd.uscourts.gov

New York

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York – www.nynd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York – www.nyed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York – www.nysd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York – www.nywd.uscourts.gov

North Carolina

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina – www.nced.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina – www.ncmd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina – www.ncwd.uscourts.gov

North Dakota

U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota – www.ndd.uscourts.gov

Northern Mariana Islands

U.S. District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands – www.nmid.uscourts.gov

Ohio

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio – www.ohnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio – www.ohsd.uscourts.gov

Oklahoma

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma – www.oknd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma – www.oked.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma – www.okwd.uscourts.gov

Oregon

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon – www.ord.uscourts.gov

Pennsylvania

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania – www.paed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania – www.pamd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania – www.pawd.uscourts.gov

Puerto Rico

U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico – www.prd.uscourts.gov

Rhode Island

U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island – www.rid.uscourts.gov

South Carolina

U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina – www.scd.uscourts.gov

South Dakota

U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota – www.sdd.uscourts.gov

Tennessee

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee – www.tned.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee – www.tnmd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee – www.tnwd.uscourts.gov

Texas

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas – www.txnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas – www.txed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas – www.txsd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas – www.txwd.uscourts.gov

Utah

U.S. District Court for the District of Utah – www.utd.uscourts.gov

Vermont

U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont – www.vtd.uscourts.gov

Virgin Islands

U.S. District Court for the Virgin Islands – www.vid.uscourts.gov

Virginia

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia – www.vaed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia – www.vawd.uscourts.gov

Washington

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington – www.waed.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington – www.wawd.uscourts.gov

West Virginia

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia – www.wvnd.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia – www.wvsd.uscourts.gov

Wisconsin

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin – www.wied.uscourts.gov
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin – www.wiwd.uscourts.gov

Wyoming

U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming – www.wyd.uscourts.gov

U.S. Courts of Appeals (Circuit Courts)

There are 13 U.S. Courts of Appeals, also known as circuit courts, which serve as the intermediate appellate courts in the federal system. Twelve of these are regional circuits that oversee appeals from the district courts within their geographic regions, while the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction over specific subject matters (e.g., patents).

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Boston, MA) – www.ca1.uscourts.gov
- Covers Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (New York, NY) – www.ca2.uscourts.gov
- Covers Connecticut, New York, Vermont
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Philadelphia, PA) – www.ca3.uscourts.gov
- Covers Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virgin Islands
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond, VA) – www.ca4.uscourts.gov
- Covers Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans, LA) – www.ca5.uscourts.gov
- Covers Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati, OH) – www.ca6.uscourts.gov
- Covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, Tennessee
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Chicago, IL) – www.ca7.uscourts.gov
- Covers Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (St. Louis, MO) – www.ca8.uscourts.gov
- Covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco, CA) – www.ca9.uscourts.gov
- Covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Washington
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Denver, CO) – www.ca10.uscourts.gov
- Covers Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Wyoming
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (Atlanta, GA) – www.ca11.uscourts.gov
- Covers Alabama, Florida, Georgia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Washington, DC) – www.cadc.uscourts.gov
- Covers District of Columbia
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Washington, DC) – www.cafc.uscourts.gov
- Nationwide jurisdiction over specialized cases (e.g., patents, international trade)

Other Federal Courts

In addition to district and circuit courts, there are a few specialized federal courts with nationwide jurisdiction or specific roles in the federal system. These are established under Article I or Article III of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. Supreme Court – www.supremecourt.gov
- The highest court in the federal system, located in Washington, DC.
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims – www.uscourts.cavc.gov
- Reviews decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals; located in Washington, DC.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces – www.armfor.uscourts.gov
- Appellate court for military justice cases; located in Washington, DC.
U.S. Tax Court – www.ustaxcourt.gov
- Handles disputes between taxpayers and the IRS; located in Washington, DC.
U.S. Court of International Trade – www.cit.uscourts.gov
- Handles cases involving international trade and customs; located in New York, NY.
U.S. Court of Federal Claims – www.uscfc.uscourts.gov
- Handles monetary claims against the U.S. government; located in Washington, DC.

Summary of Totals

District Courts: 94
Circuit Courts (Courts of Appeals): 13
Other Federal Courts: 6 (including the Supreme Court and specialized courts)

Total Federal Courts: 94 + 13 + 6 = 113

This list reflects the active federal courts as of March 21, 2025, based on the structure outlined by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and other official sources. Note that bankruptcy courts are not listed separately, as they operate under the authority of each district court (totaling 90 bankruptcy courts within the 94 districts).

The American Intelligence Media welcomes graduates of AIMSOT to add comments below for parents and students learning civics.

AIM has many homeschool parents that use our material to teach high school age children (ages 14-18). We think this current event of federal court overreach gives a parent teacher an excellent opportunity to examine the separation of powers, funding, executive interactions with other branches of government. Keep in mind that you can expand your lessons by using our search bar to the top left. If you want to know more about Senior Executive Service or specific judges that are in the news about these topics, you can easily search on AIM.

Here are 10 study questions to get the conversation and learning started:

What are the three main levels of the federal court system, and what is the role of each?
This question tests understanding of the basic structure, including district courts (trial courts), circuit courts (appellate courts), and specialized courts, with roles in hearing cases, appeals, and specific jurisdictions. It aligns with the conversation’s detail on 94 district courts and 13 circuit courts, as seen in the list provided.
How are federal judges appointed, and what is the process for their confirmation?
This focuses on the Executive Branch’s role in nominating judges and the Senate’s confirmation, highlighting separation of powers. The conversation noted the President’s appointment power under Article II, Section 2, and historical examples like Trump’s 2025 actions, ensuring students understand the process.
What is the difference between district courts and circuit courts in the federal system?
This question ensures students grasp the distinction between trial courts (district) and appellate courts (circuit), a key structural aspect from the conversation, with district courts handling initial cases and circuit courts reviewing appeals.
Can you name one specialized federal court and describe its jurisdiction?
This encourages learning about courts like the U.S. Tax Court (handling tax disputes) or the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, aligning with the conversation’s mention of specialized courts and their specific roles.
How does Congress create federal courts, and what constitutional authority allows them to do so?
This addresses Congress’s power under Article III, Section 1, to “ordain and establish” inferior courts, as discussed in the creation process, with historical examples like the Judiciary Act of 1789, ensuring students understand legislative authority.
How are federal courts funded, and what role does Congress play in this process?
This focuses on funding through federal appropriations, with Congress controlling the purse via the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, as noted in the conversation, testing understanding of budgetary processes.
What powers does the President have regarding federal courts, particularly in terms of appointing and removing judges?
This explores the President’s role in appointing judges and the ability to fire U.S. Attorneys at will, as seen in the discussion on executive powers, including historical examples from early 2025, ensuring students grasp executive influence.
Can the President unilaterally shut down federal courts? Why or why not?
This checks the understanding of separation of powers, with the conversation clarifying the President cannot abolish courts, only disrupt operations temporarily (e.g., funding delays), highlighting constitutional limits.
What happens to pending cases if a federal court is abolished?
This addresses practical implications from the conversation, such as transferring cases to state courts or dismissing them, testing students’ ability to apply knowledge to hypothetical scenarios.
Why is the independence of the federal judiciary important, and how is it protected?
This question, which could examine judges’ lifetime tenure and salary protections under Article III, ensures students understand judicial independence, a critical civics concept, and how it’s safeguarded.

Table: Summary of Key Facts for Study Questions

Question Number	Topic	Key Concept Tested	Relevant Conversation Detail
1	Levels of Federal Courts	Structure and roles	94 district courts, 13 circuit courts, specialized courts
2	Judge Appointment Process	Executive and Legislative roles	President’s nomination, Senate confirmation
3	District vs. Circuit Courts	Trial vs. appellate functions	District courts for trials, circuit for appeals
4	Specialized Courts	Specific jurisdictions	Examples like U.S. Tax Court, Veterans Claims
5	Congressional Creation	Constitutional authority	Article III, Section 1, Judiciary Act of 1789
6	Funding of Courts	Budgetary process	Congressional appropriations, AO management
7	Presidential Powers	Appointments and removals	Firing U.S. Attorneys, nominating judges
8	Presidential Shutdown Power	Separation of powers	Cannot shut down, limited to disruptions
9	Pending Cases on Abolition	Practical implications	Transfer to state courts, dismissals
10	Judicial Independence	Importance and protections	Lifetime tenure, salary protections

Activities for Homeschoolers

I personally love project activities to teach my class lessons. I think student involvement, rather than rote memorization, is the best way to learn for many high school and young adults. Below, I have made recommendations for activities for high school age students:

Activity 1: Court Creation Timeline

Create a timeline of key legislation establishing federal courts, like the Judiciary Act of 1789, using online tools or drawing by hand. This helps understand Congress’s role in creating courts.

Objective: Understand how federal courts were established over time and Congress’s legislative role.
Description: Students create a timeline of key legislation that established and reorganized federal courts, starting with the Judiciary Act of 1789 (which created 13 district courts and 3 circuit courts) and including later acts like the Judiciary Act of 1891 (establishing 9 circuit courts of appeals) and the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 (creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). This activity aligns with the conversation’s detail on court creation by Congress.
How to Do It:
- Use an online timeline tool (e.g., TimelineJS or Canva) or draw it by hand on paper.
- Include at least 5 key dates and briefly describe what each act did (e.g., “1789: Judiciary Act creates district and circuit courts”).
- Research using the U.S. Courts website or historical summaries from educational sites.
Why It Works: This activity helps students visualize the evolution of the court system, reinforcing Congress’s authority under Article III, Section 1, to “ordain and establish” inferior courts. It encourages research skills and historical understanding, suitable for individual work.
Resources: U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov), free online timeline tools, or history textbooks.

Activity 2: Federal Judiciary Budget Analysis

Research the current federal judiciary budget, analyze fund allocation, and discuss its impact on operations using resources from the U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov).

Objective: Learn how federal courts are funded and why funding impacts their operations.
Description: Students research the current budget for the federal judiciary (excluding the Supreme Court, approximately $8.9 billion for FY 2025 as of March 21, 2025) and analyze how funds are allocated to different courts and functions. They discuss how funding affects salaries, facilities, and technology, aligning with the conversation’s detail on funding through congressional appropriations.
How to Do It:
- Visit the U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov) to find budget summaries or annual reports.
- Create a simple pie chart or bar graph using free tools like Canva, showing how funds are distributed (e.g., district courts vs. circuit courts).
- Write a short paragraph (100-150 words) explaining why funding is important for the judiciary’s independence and operational capacity.
Why It Works: This activity highlights Congress’s role in funding via the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act and helps students understand practical government operations. It encourages data analysis and critical thinking, suitable for individual research.
Resources: U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov) for budget information, free graphing tools.

Activity 3: Simulating the Judicial Appointment Process

Simulate appointing a federal judge, researching nomination and confirmation steps, and role-play with family or record a video, using news articles for examples.

Objective: Understand the process of appointing federal judges and the roles of the Executive and Legislative branches.
Description: Students simulate the process of appointing a federal judge, researching a real or hypothetical nomination, including the President’s nomination, Senate confirmation hearings, and the role of organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA) in evaluating nominees. This aligns with the conversation’s detail on the President’s power to nominate judges and the Senate’s confirmation role.
How to Do It:
- Choose a recent or historical judicial nomination (e.g., a U.S. District Court judge from 2024-2025, using news articles).
- Write a script or create a presentation outlining the steps: nomination by the President, ABA evaluation, Senate Judiciary Committee review, and confirmation vote.
- Role-play the process with family members (e.g., one as President, one as Senator) or record a video of a mock confirmation hearing, discussing any controversies.
Why It Works: This activity illustrates the separation of powers and checks and balances, encouraging role-playing and research skills. It is adaptable for family involvement, enhancing engagement in a home setting.
Resources: News articles (from legitimate news sites), government websites (e.g., Senate Judiciary Committee), or educational resources on judicial nominations.

Activity 4: Analyzing a Federal Case Study

Select a federal case study from educational resources, track its progress through courts, and analyze decisions, enhancing understanding of court functions.

Objective: Understand how cases move through the federal court system and the roles of district and circuit courts.
Description: Students select a real federal case study (or use a provided case study from educational resources) and track its progress from the district court through the appeals process, if applicable. They analyze the decisions made at each level and discuss how they reflect the structure and function of the federal court system, aligning with the conversation’s detail on court functions.
How to Do It:
- Use educational resources like the U.S. Courts website (www.uscourts.gov), which provides case studies for students under “Educational Resources.”
- Write a summary of the case, including:
  - The original issue (district court level, e.g., a civil rights case).
  - The appeal (circuit court level, e.g., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit).
  - The final outcome (if resolved or escalated further, though excluding Supreme Court for this activity).
- Discuss how the structure ensures fairness and consistency (e.g., district courts for trials, circuit courts for appeals).
Why It Works: This activity helps students see the practical application of the court system’s structure, encouraging research and analysis skills. It is suitable for individual work, using online resources.
Resources: U.S. Courts educational materials (www.uscourts.gov) or simplified case summaries from civic education sites.

Activity 5: Debating Executive Powers Over Federal Prosecutors

Debate whether the President should fire U.S. Attorneys without cause, researching historical examples like Trump’s 2025 actions, encouraging critical thinking.

Objective: Explore the Executive Branch’s powers and limitations regarding federal courts, particularly federal prosecutors.
Description: Students engage in a debate on whether the President should have the power to fire U.S. Attorneys (federal prosecutors) without cause. They research historical examples, such as President Donald Trump’s actions in early 2025 to fire Biden-era U.S. Attorneys, and constitutional arguments about executive authority, aligning with the conversation’s detail on the President’s power to fire U.S. Attorneys.
How to Do It:
- Divide into two teams: one arguing for unlimited presidential power to fire U.S. Attorneys, and the other arguing for restrictions (e.g., requiring “good cause,” as with special counsels).
- Prepare arguments using research from news articles (e.g., The Guardian, Newsweek), legal analyses, and constitutional sources.
- Hold a debate (record a video or present to family) or write a persuasive essay (500 words).
Why It Works: This activity encourages critical thinking about separation of powers and the balance between executive discretion and judicial independence, suitable for discussion with family or individual writing.
Resources: News articles, legal blogs, or constitutional law resources like Congressional Authority to Restrict Lower Federal Court Jurisdiction.

Table: Summary of Activities and Key Details

Activity Name	Objective	Key Skills Developed	Resources Needed	Adaptability for Homeschoolers
Court Creation Timeline	Understand court establishment by Congress	Research, historical analysis	U.S. Courts website, timeline tools	Individual, online tools
Federal Judiciary Budget Analysis	Learn funding process and impact	Data analysis, writing	U.S. Courts website, graphing tools	Individual, online research
Simulating Judicial Appointment	Understand nomination and confirmation process	Role-playing, presentation	News articles, family involvement	Family interaction, video
Analyzing Federal Case Study	Track cases through courts, understand roles	Research, critical thinking	U.S. Courts educational materials	Individual, online resources
Debating Executive Powers	Explore President’s powers over prosecutors	Debate, persuasive writing	News articles, legal resources	Family debate, individual essay

Educational Alignment and Resources

These activities align with standard civics education goals, as seen in resources like Distance Learning: Civics for Civic Engagement with the Federal Courts, which includes activities on separation of powers and the rule of law, and Civic Education About the Courts, offering materials on court history and organization. They reflect the conversation’s focus on practical and constitutional aspects, ensuring relevance for homeschoolers as of today’s post.

If your students enjoyed this civics lesson plan, make sure to check out the lesson plan on Lillian Scott Troy which is an excellent addition to your American history lessons:

Lillian Scott Troy: Exposing Shadows of Power in America

___
https://aim4truth.org/2025/03/21/understanding-the-structure-of-federal-courts-in-the-u-s/

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

WATCH! Idiocracy Looms As Study Finds TikTok Rots Youth Minds

Israel’s traitorous CIA point man for both Kennedy assassinations →