Evarts ActEdit

The Evarts Act, commonly dated to 1891 and associated with William M. Evarts, was a landmark reform of the United States federal judiciary. It created a distinct intermediate appellate structure—the United States Courts of Appeals—and reshaped how federal appeals were handled. By moving a large portion of appellate work out of the Supreme Court and into new, specialized courts, the act sought to bring greater efficiency, consistency, and speed to the administration of federal law while preserving the Supreme Court’s ultimate authority over important questions of constitutional and national policy.

Historical background

In the 19th century, the federal judiciary faced a swelling docket as commerce expanded across state lines and the national government asserted more activity in civil and criminal matters. Appeals from the district courts often arrived in the Supreme Court of the United States, which bore a heavy load and had to address a wide range of issues, sometimes delaying decisions on significant questions. Reformers argued that a dedicated appellate structure could provide more uniform interpretations of federal law and relieve the Supreme Court to focus on matters of broad constitutional importance. The Evarts Act emerged from this climate as a practical response to a growing demand for administrative reform in the federal judiciary.

Provisions and impact

Creation of the Courts of Appeals

  • The act established the United States Courts of Appeals as a formal intermediate appellate tier between the district courts and the Supreme Court. These new courts were designed to handle the vast majority of routine and complex federal appeals without diverting the Supreme Court from its principal constitutional duties.
  • In doing so, the act laid the groundwork for a nationwide system of appellate review that could develop coherent interpretations of federal statutes and constitutional provisions across different regions. The original circuits—eventually numbering nine—brought uniformity to federal practice in diverse sets of states and territories.

Jurisdiction and procedure

  • The newly created appellate courts were empowered to review decisions of the district courts, subject to the Supreme Court’s ultimate authority on important questions. This arrangement allowed the Supreme Court to concentrate on cases of national significance while the Courts of Appeals handled the bulk of routine appellate work.
  • The act also clarified mechanisms for review, directing more routine questions to be resolved at the intermediate level, with the Supreme Court’s traditional power to issue writs of certiorari retained for cases deemed to have broader implications.

Staffing and administration

  • The Evarts Act authorized the appointment of additional circuit judges and structured the administrative framework for the new courts. This expansion reflected a belief that a larger appellate bench would enhance efficiency and reduce delays in deciding federal questions.
  • By creating a more professional and specialized appellate workforce, the act aimed to improve the quality and predictability of federal appellate decision-making.

Relationship with the Supreme Court

  • The Supreme Court retained ultimate appellate authority and continued to hear a limited number of cases directly, especially those presenting significant constitutional issues or questions of national importance.
  • The reform did not remove the Court’s central role, but it rebalanced the workload so that the high court could focus on decisions with broad implications while the Courts of Appeals developed expertise in the application of federal law.

Controversies and debates

Efficiency vs. centralization

  • Supporters from business and professional communities argued that a clear, predictable, and centralized appellate system would reduce uncertainty and speed up the resolution of disputes involving federal statutes and interstate commerce.
  • Critics worried that expanding a federal appellate apparatus might concentrate too much discretion in a centralized bureaucracy and create potential path dependencies in statutory interpretation that could constrain local or regional legal practices.

Judicial independence and accountability

  • The reform emphasized professionalization and specialization in appellate practice, which many viewed as strengthening the rule of law. However, some argued that expanding the federal judiciary increased the government’s reach into the everyday affairs of private actors, potentially expanding regulatory oversight and litigation risk for businesses.
  • Debates over structural reform often touched on the balance between national uniformity and state autonomy in the application of federal law, a core issue in discussions of federalism.

Legacy and significance

  • The Evarts Act is widely credited with establishing a durable and stable framework for federal appellate review. It set the stage for modern appellate procedure, contributed to consistent interpretation of federal statutes, and helped prevent the Supreme Court from becoming overwhelmed by routine appeals.
  • The system that it created remains a central feature of the federal judiciary, with the Courts of Appeals continuing to play a crucial role in shaping federal law while the Supreme Court handles cases of exceptional significance.

See also