The Supreme Court is the most powerful federal court.
The Courts of Appeal are the most powerful courts most litigants will ever reach (the Supreme Court only hears a tiny number of cases a year).
The District Courts are the trial level courts.
They have the least effect on the judicial branch. Judges are not permitted to discuss issues with or take favors from any others.
I would argue that the Legislative branch has at least two important powers over the judicial branch: 1) the ability to approve or reject presidential nominations for judicial office; 2) the power of impeachment over federal judges and justices.
The judicial branch. The Constitution creates the federal judiciary only in the form of the Supreme Court and leaves it to Congress to create any other courts. This is unusual because, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate rather than original jurisdiction in all but certain select matters. If the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction in most matters, where does the appeal come from if there are no trial courts yet created. The powers of Congress are very detailed and the President's fairly detailed, but the Courts powers are not. This was probably because the Framers simply assumed that the judicial power of the federal government would be the same that the common law and chancery courts of England and the states now enjoyed, only that the federal judicial power would be limited to federal questions.
The legislative branch is discussed first and in greatest detail because it was meant to have the most power. The executive branch is next discussed at little length because it was not meant to be too powerful and meant to be protected against. The judicial branch is discussed last and least in depth because its role was not fully realized yet and its power was minimal.
There is no fixed answer to your question. Depending on the size and population of the state, the number varies from one to four US District Courts that may sit in more than one location. All states have courts belonging to the Legislative branch, such as US Bankruptcy Courts (typically the same number as District Courts). Some states also host the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts.
Judicial Branch
~judicial branch is the peson who interprets the laws!!!!~ == ==The judicial branch, and, in some areas, administrative bureaucracies which are (at least theoretically) supervised by either the Legislature or the Executive Branch.
The 94 US District Courts are the trial courts of the federal judicial branch. The district courts were created by Congress and have jurisdiction to hear most categories of federal cases, civil and criminal. There are 94 federal districts, at least one in each state, DC, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The US District Courts hear cases of general jurisdiction (criminal and civil cases). The US District Courts hear 80% of trial cases; however, the "federal court system" is broader than the Judicial Branch and the US Special Courts that hold the other 20% of federal trials. The US Special Courts include US Bankruptcy Courts, US Tax Courts, the US Court of Federal Claims and several other courts of limited jurisdiction established under Congress authority in Article I of the Constitution. While these are part of the federal court system, they are not part of the Judicial Branch but part of the Legislative Branch.
They have the least effect on the judicial branch. Judges are not permitted to discuss issues with or take favors from any others.
I would argue that the Legislative branch has at least two important powers over the judicial branch: 1) the ability to approve or reject presidential nominations for judicial office; 2) the power of impeachment over federal judges and justices.
Actually, it doesn't say any specfic qualfications for the judicial branch, but i'm guessing you must be a US citizen, at least 18, and probably something else.
I would argue that the Legislative branch has at least two important powers over the judicial branch: 1) the ability to approve or reject presidential nominations for judicial office; 2) the power of impeachment over federal judges and justices.
Hamilton saw the judicial branch as the "least dangerous" because it had no effect on either "the sword or the purse". basically, he saw it as a mere interpreter of laws with no real influence over anything that could be a potential threat to the country.
The judicial branch. The Constitution creates the federal judiciary only in the form of the Supreme Court and leaves it to Congress to create any other courts. This is unusual because, the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate rather than original jurisdiction in all but certain select matters. If the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction in most matters, where does the appeal come from if there are no trial courts yet created. The powers of Congress are very detailed and the President's fairly detailed, but the Courts powers are not. This was probably because the Framers simply assumed that the judicial power of the federal government would be the same that the common law and chancery courts of England and the states now enjoyed, only that the federal judicial power would be limited to federal questions.
Both the executive and the judicial branches. But at least there was what you might call an executive branch - although it worked very differently from the way the US Presidency functions - but the Romans did not have a separate, independently functioning Judicial branch. So that is very probably the one you are looking for.
The legislative branch is discussed first and in greatest detail because it was meant to have the most power. The executive branch is next discussed at little length because it was not meant to be too powerful and meant to be protected against. The judicial branch is discussed last and least in depth because its role was not fully realized yet and its power was minimal.
Every court has its own schedule. If the workload of a particular court is light enough they might sit every four months, but most courts sit more often than that. It is not idiomatic to talk about courts "meeting"; at least not the judicial kind of court.