Origins
The United States Courts of Appeals were created by the Evarts Act (Judiciary Act of 1891) to relieve the Supreme Court’s overwhelming caseload. Before 1891, appeals from district courts went directly to the Supreme Court, while Supreme Court justices themselves traveled to hear cases as circuit judges. This system, adequate for a small nation, became unworkable as federal litigation expanded after the Civil War and industrialization.
The 1891 Act established nine circuit courts of appeals, each covering multiple states, staffed by dedicated appellate judges rather than Supreme Court justices doing double duty. Appeals would end at the circuit level for most cases, with Supreme Court review limited to cases of constitutional significance or conflicting circuit decisions. This intermediate tier filtered the vast majority of appeals, allowing the Supreme Court to focus on its constitutional role.
The circuit system has evolved with national growth. Congress added the Tenth Circuit in 1929, splitting western states from the Eighth Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit was created in 1981 from the overloaded Fifth Circuit. The Federal Circuit, established in 1982, consolidated specialized appeals in patent, international trade, and government contract cases. The District of Columbia Circuit handles many administrative agency appeals. Today’s thirteen circuits reflect both geography and subject-matter specialization.
Structure & Function
The Courts of Appeals comprise approximately 180 authorized judgeships distributed across thirteen circuits. Twelve geographic circuits cover regional territories; the Federal Circuit handles nationwide appeals in specialized areas. Circuit judges, appointed by the President with Senate confirmation for life tenure, typically serve on three-judge panels that hear arguments and issue decisions. The randomness of panel assignment means legal outcomes can vary significantly based on which judges hear a case.
Most appeals are decided by three-judge panels whose decisions bind district courts within the circuit. Parties dissatisfied with panel decisions can request en banc review—rehearing by all active judges in the circuit (or a representative subset in larger circuits). En banc review is rare, granted in cases of exceptional importance or to resolve conflicts between panels. The full circuit can overrule panel precedent, maintaining doctrinal consistency within each circuit.
The circuits develop distinct legal cultures and interpretive approaches. The Ninth Circuit (western states) and Fourth Circuit (mid-Atlantic) often reach different conclusions on identical legal questions. These “circuit splits” frequently prompt Supreme Court review to establish uniform national law. Until the Supreme Court resolves a split, federal law effectively varies by geography—the same conduct might be legal in one circuit and illegal in another.
Historical Significance
The Courts of Appeals have become the final word in federal law for the vast majority of cases. The Supreme Court’s limited capacity—hearing roughly 80 cases annually from thousands of petitions—means circuit decisions are effectively unreviewable in most instances. Circuit court judges thus shape federal law on criminal procedure, civil rights, administrative regulation, and countless other areas with limited Supreme Court oversight.
Individual circuits have pioneered legal doctrines later adopted nationally. The D.C. Circuit’s expertise in administrative law has made it the primary venue for challenges to federal regulations, developing the principles governing agency action. The Second Circuit’s dominance in securities and commercial litigation has shaped business law. The Fifth and Eleventh Circuits have been battlegrounds for civil rights litigation, with their decisions determining the scope of constitutional protections across the South.
Circuit judge appointments have become increasingly politicized as their significance has grown. Presidents prioritize appellate appointments, recognizing that circuit judges shape federal law for decades. Confirmation battles, once reserved for Supreme Court nominees, now extend to circuit judges whose votes can determine legal outcomes for millions. The courts’ intermediate position—reviewing district courts while subject to Supreme Court oversight—places them at the center of federal judicial power.
Key Developments
- 1789: Original circuit court system created with Supreme Court justices riding circuit
- 1869: Circuit judges authorized; justices continue circuit duties
- 1891: Evarts Act creates circuit courts of appeals as permanent intermediate courts
- 1911: Original circuit courts abolished; trial jurisdiction transferred to district courts
- 1929: Tenth Circuit created from Eighth Circuit
- 1948: Courts renamed from “circuit courts of appeals” to “courts of appeals”
- 1978: Bankruptcy Reform Act expands federal court jurisdiction significantly
- 1980: Fifth Circuit caseload crisis prompts division discussions
- 1981: Eleventh Circuit created from Fifth Circuit
- 1982: Federal Circuit established for specialized appeals
- 1988: Supreme Court discretionary jurisdiction expanded; circuit decisions become more final
- 2005: Class Action Fairness Act increases federal appellate caseload
- 2020: Courts adapt to virtual oral arguments during pandemic
- 2024: Caseload exceeds 50,000 appeals annually across all circuits