Also known as: Art. III · article 3 · U.S. Const. art. III
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The constitutional provision that vests the judicial power of the United States in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as Congress may ordain and establish. Judges of those courts hold office during good behavior and receive compensation that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. The clause limits Congress's authority to assign adjudication of private rights disputes to non-Article III tribunals and requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a concrete and particularized injury for standing.
Audrey Ashton sued the Environmental Protection Agency alleging that the agency failed to enforce a pollution statute against every industrial facility in the nation. She alleged only that the government was not following the law and that she shared that interest with all other citizens. The district court dismissed the action because Ashton had not shown any concrete and particularized injury to herself.
Alexandra Armstrong sued her employer in federal court under a federal benefits statute. She added state-law tort claims arising from the same denial of benefits. The district court exercised jurisdiction over the state claims because they formed part of the same constitutional case or controversy as the federal claim.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Antonio Alvarado filed for bankruptcy and asked the bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on his prepetition state-law breach-of-contract claim against a private counterparty. The court refused because the claim was a traditional private-rights dispute that Article III reserves for courts whose judges enjoy life tenure and salary protection.
Aaron Adams sued a company alleging that it violated a consumer-protection statute by sending him one unsolicited email. He could not show any actual or threatened harm beyond the bare statutory violation. The court dismissed the suit for lack of Article III standing.
Austin Abbott challenged fines imposed by an executive-branch commission that both promulgated safety rules and adjudicated violations of those rules. The commission's members lacked life tenure. The court upheld the structure because the commission performed both administrative and judicial functions within a valid legislative scheme.
Adam Anderson owned beachfront parcels rendered unusable by a state coastal-protection statute. He sued in federal district court asserting a regulatory taking. The court recognized that the claim presented a live Article III controversy even though a state permit procedure might later restore some value to the land.
A plaintiff must demonstrate an injury in fact that is both concrete and particularized. A bare statutory violation or a generalized grievance shared by all citizens is insufficient.
Supporting sources
No. Congress may not wholesale assign cases of the type traditionally heard by Article III courts, such as state-law contract claims between private parties, to Article I courts whose judges lack life tenure and salary protection.
Supporting sources
Once a federal court has original jurisdiction over a claim, it may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims that form part of the same case or controversy because they share a common nucleus of operative fact.
Supporting sources
No. Congress may create Article I bodies that combine rulemaking and adjudication when they implement a valid legislative scheme, even if the adjudicators lack life tenure and salary protection.
Supporting sources
…In that situation we thought that the requirements of standing should be strict, lest the standards of "case or controversy" in Article III of the Constitution become blurred. Here those doubts are removed by reason of a criminal conviction for serving married couples in violation of an aiding-and-abetting statute. Certainly…