Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 4 P39 docx

The Supreme Court is empowered to hear cases on appeal that originate anywhere in the United States or its territories. Jurisdiction Jurisdiction is a broad legal term that means the authority of a court to hear and determine a controversy ( SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION)aswell as its authority to bind the parties in the action ( PERSONAL JURISDICTION). Before a court can exercise subject matter jurisdict ion, it mu st have personal jurisdiction of the parties; other- wise, any judgment rendered by it is null and void. The jurisdiction of a court is derived from constitutional provisions or from statu te. Fed- eral courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They can exercise only the jurisdiction they were specifically given by the Constitution or federal law. Article III of the Constitution establishes the exclusive jurisdiction of federal courts in all cases, whether based on law or equity, that arise under the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States; that involve ambassadors, consuls, and other public minis- ters, admiralty and maritime claims, or the United States as a party; or that arise between two or more states, between a state and a citizen of another state, between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, or between a state or its citizens and foreign states, citizens, or subjects. This article specifically gives the Supreme Court ORIGINAL JURISDICTION to try cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls and cases in which a state is a party. In all other case s, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction: It can review the decisions rendered by courts in which the action was tried or subsequently heard on appeal. The power of a federal court to hear matters arising under the Constitution, federal law, or treaty is called FEDERAL QUESTION jurisdiction. Its diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction empowers it to determine controversies between parties who are citizens of different states. The controversy must have a value of more than $75,000 in order for the court to exercise either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. The $75,000 figure is known as the jurisdictional amount. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction to try these disputes. The federal district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction to entertain BANKRUPTCY cases and prize cases, which determine the rights in ships and cargo captured at sea. Other controversies that are within the jurisdiction of federal courts include INTERPLEADER actions involving citizens of different states where the item in dispute is worth $500 or more; postal matters; and COPYRIGHT, patent, and trademark cases based on federal law. Federal district courts are also authorized by statute to remove actions from state courts to themselves when the disputes could have been brought in such courts originally. The regional courts of appeals have statutory appellate jurisdiction to review final decisions and specified INTERLOCUTORY orders rendered by district courts and administrative determina- tions made by federal agencies. Interlocutory orders are reviewable in the following situa- tions: when they (1) affect existing injunctions in cases where there is no direct review in the Supreme Court; (2) appoint receivers, refuse to do so, or affect the sale or disposal of property; (3) determine the rights and liabilities of parties in admiralty cases in which appeals from final decree are permissible; or (4) are issued in a bankruptcy action. The courts of appeals also review judgments in civil actions for patent INFRINGEMENT that are final except for an accounting, and judgments rendered in bank- ruptcy cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has specialized appellate jurisdiction. No federal court has jurisdiction to enter- tain political questions or to issue advisory opinions, because neither constitutes a case or a controversy, one of which must exist if a federal court is to exercise its jurisdiction. Federal courts are also powerless to determine matters that are beyond the scope of their jurisdiction, such as cases involving domestic relations or wills, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of state courts. Bankruptcy Courts In the late 1970s Congress enacted compre- hensive legislation that significantly revised bankruptcy law. Among its various provisions, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (11 U.S.C. A. § 101 et seq.) reorganized the structure of the bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy matters are now heard by a bankruptcy judge. Bankruptcy courts serve as adjuncts to U.S. district courts and have jurisdiction to administer and enforce federal bankruptcy law. A bankruptcy court operates in each federal district. Appeals from this court go GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEDERAL COURTS 369 to the district court or, if the parties agree, directly to the court of appeals that has jurisdiction over the district. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (Pub. L. 103–394, Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4106) auth- orizes bankruptcy judges to hold status con- ferences to determine the progress of a case and to attempt to expedite the case’s conclusion. Pursuant to a status conference, a judge may issue orders that prescribe limitations and conditions necessary to ensure the economic handling of the case. The act also authoriz es bankruptcy judges to conduct jury trials with the consent of all parties. Bankruptcy judges are appointed by the CIRCUIT COURT for the judicial district in which the judges will sit. They serve for a term of 14 years. Court of Federal Claims Congress created the former Court of Claims to safeguard the financial stability of the govern- ment by not permitting a multitude of claims to deplete the public treasury. Traditionally, per- sons whose rights were violated by the federal government could seek congressional enact- ment of a PRIVATE BILL authorizing a payment of money to compensate for the loss. Private bills were addressed to the conscience of the government; therefore, their passage depended on political factors. Inconsistencies in the passage of private bills and an increase in their number put pressure on legislators and caused serious delay in the completion of the legislative agenda. To ame- liorate the situation, Congress enacted a law in 1855 creating the Court of Claims, which was empowered to hear claims against the govern- ment and report its findings to Congress along with proposals for solving the problem i n each case. Initially, the Court of Claims could hear only claims and determine whether they had merit. By the end of 1861, however, Congress was still overburdened by the need to review claims that had already been considered by the Court of Claims. President ABRAHAM LINCOLN recommended that judgments made by the Court of Claims be considered final without any further action on the part of Congress. In 1863 Congress accepted the suggestion. The decisions of the Court of Claims were made final with no further action by Congress necessary to give them effect. Appeals, when permitted, were made directly to the Supreme Court. In 1982 the Federal Courts Improvement Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.) established the U.S. Claims Court, a trial court that inherited almost all the trial jurisdiction of the former Court of Claims. The court’s name was changed to U.S. Court of Federal Claims by the Federal Courts Administration Act of 1992 (106 Stat. 4516 [28 U.S.C.A. § 1 note]). The court hears lawsuits against the United States based on the Consti- tution, federal la ws, or contracts, or for damages in actions other than torts. It also has jurisdic- tion to determine cases concerning the salaries of public officers or agents, damages for someone who was unjustly convicted of a federal crime and imprisoned, and some American Indian claims. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has appellate jurisdiction regarding Court of Federal Claims decisions. The court’s jurisdiction is nationwide. Trials are conducted at locations that are most convenient and least expensive to taxpayers. Court of International Trade Congress created the Court of International Trade, formerly known as the Customs Court, to have exclusive jurisdiction in actions involving the imposition of CUSTOMS DUTIES by customs officials. The court can consider the classification of merchandise for customs purposes, the rate charged under the applicable TARIFF law, or the refusal of the officials of the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY to make refunds that are allegedly due. The history and develop ment of the Court of International Trade are intertwined with those of the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. At the end of the nineteenth century, the Board of General Appraisers was responsible for the classification of items for import and export and the determination of the rate of customs duties to be imposed. The federal circuit courts, pursuant to their general power to hear appeals, reviewed these decisions from 1890 to 1909. Congress created the Court of Customs Appeals in 1909 to assume the review of appeals from the decisions of the Board of General Appraisers. This specialized court developed expertise in adjudicating the complex and technical issues that arose in customs actions and functioned as a speedy and efficient vehicle for dispen sing with such matters, because it could not hear any other GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 370 FEDERAL COURTS cases. It provided sure and uniform administra- tion of justice in such matters, since it was the only court in the United States with exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The Board of General Appraisers became the U.S. Customs Court in 1926 and was renamed the Court of International Trade in 1981. The Court of Customs Appeals was designated the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals in 1929 because its jurisdiction was expanded to include review of the decisions of the Patent and Trademark Office. The functions of this court were assumed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982. The Court of International Trade consists of nine judges, who serve for life unless they are guilty of misconduct; one is named chief judge by the president. Although one judge can hear a case, a panel of three judges usually entertains cases that have significant constitutional rami- fications in the customs field. The court is located in New York City because of the importance of the city as a port of entry. The chief judge can dispatch any judges to other ports to hear an action when it is economical, efficient, and fair to do so. A hearing can even be held in a foreign country if that country so permits. District of Columbia Courts Historically, the local District of Columbia courts were considered part of the federal court system, since they were created by an act of Congress. The U.S. district court was the usual forum for the adjudication of controversies that arose under District of Columbia as well as federal laws. Owing to a number of judicial reorganizations, however, the District of Co- lumbia as of the early 2000s has its own court system, separate from the federal court system, to hear and determine local disputes. Federal courts still retain authority over any matters that fall within the scope of their designated jurisdiction. Tax Court The U.S. Tax Court was originally created as the U.S. Board of Tax Appeals and functioned as an independent agency in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the government. Pursuant to the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (83 Stat. 730), its name was changed to U.S. Tax Court, and as of the early 2000s it is an independent judicial body in the legisla- tive branch. Nineteen judges, appointed by the president, serve on the court; although the court is headquartered in Washington, D.C., the judges travel to other specially designated cities to conduct trials. The Tax Court adjudicates various contro- versies involving overpayments or underpay- ments of taxes. Unlike the district courts, the Tax Court does not require a citizen to pay the amount of tax in dispute and file a claim for a refund before it hears and decides the matter. The taxpayer must, however, request and receive from the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE a statutory notice of deficiency that states the disputed sum. The Tax Court has no jurisdic- tion unless the notice has been issued and a petition for a hearing has been filed within a specified time. Simplified procedures are available for small tax cases where the AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY does not exceed $50,000. The decision of the Tax Court in such a case is final and is not subject to review by any court. The Tax Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory judgments in many areas, such as the qualification of retirement plans, the tax- exempt status of charitable organizations, and the status of interest on certain government obligations. In addition, the Tax Court may issue injunctions in certain assessment cases and decide taxpayers’ appeals from denial of admin- istrative costs by the Internal Revenue Service. All Tax Court decisions, except those in small tax cases, are subject to review by the courts of appeals and, by WRIT of certiorari, by the U.S. Supreme Court. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces is the final appellate tribunal that reviews COURT- MARTIAL proceedings of the armed services. Established in 1950 (10 U.S.C.A. § 867), it is presided over by five civilian judges who are appointed for 15-year terms by the president. Rulings of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces are subject only to certiorari review by the Supreme Court. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims The U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS was established in 1988 (102 Stat. 4105 [38 U.S. C.A. § 4051]). Originally called the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, it was renamed in March 1999 as part of the Veterans Enhancement Act GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEDERAL COURTS 371 of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105–368). It has exclusive jurisdiction to review decisions of the Board of Veterans Appeals. The court may not review the schedule of ratings for disabilities or the policies underlying the schedule. Decisions of the court may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Seven judges serve on this court; they are appointed by the president and serve for 15-year terms. FURTHER READINGS U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 2003. Available online at www.armfor.uscourts.gov (accessed Septem- ber 18, 2009). U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 2003. Available online at www.vetapp.gov (accessed September 18, 2009). U.S. Court of Federal Claims. 2003. Available online at www.uscfc.uscourts.gov (September 18, 2009). U.S. Court of International Trade. 2003. Available online at www.cit.uscourts.gov (accessed September 18, 2009). U.S. Tax Court. 2003. Available online at www.ustaxcourt. gov (accessed September 18, 2009). FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was created on June 16, 1933, under the authority of the Federal Reserve Act, section 12B (12 U.S.C.A. § 264[s]). It was signed into law by Presid ent FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT to promote and preserve public confidence in banks at the time of the most severe banking crisis in U.S. history. From the STOCK MARKET crash of 1929 to the beginning of Roosevelt’s tenure as president in 1933, more than 9,000 banks closed their doors, resulting in losses to depositors of over $1.3 billion. The FDIC was established in order to provide insurance coverage for bank deposits, thereby maintaining financial stability throughou t the United States. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) is an independent agency of the federal government. Its management was established by the Banking Act of 1933. It consists of a BOARD OF DIRECTORS with five members, the chairman, the vice chairman, the director, the comptroller of the currency, and the director of the OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION . The headquarters of the FDIC is located in Washington, D.C., and the corporation has eight regional offices. Most of its employees are bank examiners. The FDIC does not operate on funds from Congress. The capital necessary to start the corporation back in 1933 was provided by the U.S. Treasury and the 12 Federal Reserve banks. Since then, its major sources of INCOME have been assessments on deposits held by insured banks and interest on its portfolio of U.S. Treasury securities. Besides administering the Bank Insurance Fund, the FDIC is also responsible for the Savings Association Insurance Fund (SAI F), which was established on August 9, 1989, under the authority of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) (12 U.S.C.A. § 1821 [2]). The SAIF insures deposits in savings and loan associations. The FDIC also insures, up to the statutory limitation, deposits in national banks, state banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System, and state banks that apply for federal deposit insurance and meet certain qualifications. The FDIC may make loans to and purchase assets from insured depository institutions in order to facilitate mergers or consolidations, when such action for the protection of deposi- tors will reduce risks or avert threatened loss to the agency. It will prevent the closing of an insured bank when it considers the operation of that institution essential to providing adequate banking. The FDIC may, after notice and a hearing, terminate the insured status of a bank that continues to engage in unsafe banking prac- tices. The FDIC will regulate the manner in which t he depository in stitutio n gives therequirednoticeofsuchaterminationto depositors. From 1980 to 1990, a total of 1,110 banks failed, principally owing to bad loans in a slowly weakening real estate market, and risky loans to developing countries. The FDIC found itself i n such financial straits that in 1990, Chairman L. William Seidman testified before Congress, “The insurance fund is under considerable stress” and is “at the lowest point at anytime in modern history.” The FIRREA and the FDIC Improvement Act of 1991 (codified in scattered sections of 12 U.S.C.A.) came as reactions to the savings and loan crisis and to a banking crisis of the 1980s, which together cost the U.S. taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. FIRREA gave the FDIC the authority to administer the SAIF, replacing the Federal GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 372 FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) as the insurer of deposits in savings and loan associations. The FDIC Improvement Act placed new restrictions on the way that the corporation repaid lost deposits. Before the law’s enactment, the FDIC deemed it necessary to repay all deposits, whether or not they were at an insured bank or over $100,000 (the limit for FDIC insurance at the time), in order to protect public confidence in the nation’s financial institutions. Since the law’s enactment, it must take a “least-cost” method of case resolution. The act stipulates that the FDIC will not be permitted to cover uninsured deposi tors unless the president, the secretary of the treasury, and the FDIC jointly determine that not doing so would have serious adverse effects on the economic conditions of the nation or community. The FDIC has played a critical role in the attempt to stabilize a weakening U.S. economy in 2008 and 2009. During that time, the FDIC has taken over a lengthy and growing list of banks at an extremely large cost to the American taxpayer. In 2008, the FDIC insur- ance limit was increased from $100,000 to $250,000 (and $250,000 per co-owner in the case of joint accounts), with the increase to remain through December 31, 2013. In times of economic uncertainty, the FDIC’s mission of maintaining stability and public confidence in the U.S. financial system is paramount. Website: www.fdic.gov . FURTHER READINGS FDIC 2007 Annual Report. Available online at www.fdic.gov (accessed May 17, 2009). Muolo, Paul. 2009. The $700 Billion Bailout: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and What It Means to You, Your Money, your Mortgage, and your Taxes. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley. Seidman, William L. 1993. Full Faith and Credit. New York: Random House. White, Lawrence J. 1991. The S&L Debacle. New York: Oxford Univ. Press. CROSS REFERENCES Banks and Banking; Federal Reserve Board. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent agency that was established by the 1974 amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (88 Stat. § 1280 [2 U.S. C.A. § 431 et seq.]). Congress enacted the legislation in 1974 after President RICHARD M . NIXON resigned in the wake of the WATERGATE scandal, which included charges of ABUSE OF POWER and OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE involving campaign contributions. The FEC establishes financial rules governing campaigns for federal office. The agency was designed to act both as a clearinghouse for information on federal cam- paign laws and as the enforcer of campaign laws. The FEC is composed of six commis sioners who are appointed by the president with the ADVICE AND CONSENT of the Senate. The act also provides for three statutory officers—the staff director, the general counsel, and the inspector general—who are appointed by the commission. The main responsibility of the FEC is to enforce federal campaign financing laws. Thus, its scope is limited to overseeing the financing of congressional, senatorial, and presidential election campaigns. The Federal Election Cam- paign Act, as amended in 1974, was intended to severely limit the amount of financial Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Bank insurance fund-insured commercial and savings banks closed or assisted due to financial difficulties, and problem banks, 2004 to 2009 a 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 4 80 2004 0 52 2005 0 50 2006 3 76 2007 30 252 2008 21 305 2009 Year Number of banks Number of failed/assisted institutions Number of problem institutions a As of March 2009. SOURCE: U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, FDIC Quarterly Banking Profile, “First Quarter 2009,” vol. 3, no. 2, March 2009. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 373 contributions made by wealthy individuals and to place limits on the amounts that candidates could spend on their campaigns. In addition, the law required public disclosure of all campaign contributions and established public financing for presidential campaigns. Since the law was enacted in 1971, the FEC has been faced with lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of its campaign-financing pro- visions. The U.S. Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo (424 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 612, 46 L. Ed. 2d 659 [1976]), complicated the work of the FEC when it ruled that the 1974 act’s limitation on campaign expenditures was unconstitutional. The Court upheld the limit of $1,000 for individual contributions, but ruled that cand i- dates could spend as mu ch as they wished of their personal fortunes on their campaigns. Because of loopholes in the law and the Buckley decision, there has been a tremendous growth in political action committees (PACs) as vehicles for major campaign spending. PACs are special organizations formed by labor, industry, the professions, and other interest groups that are not identified with individual candidates. PACs are not bound by the individual-contribution restriction; therefore, their political influence has risen with their large contributions. The FEC administers and enforces the law with respect to limits and prohibitions on contributions and expenditures made to influence federal elections. In addition, it enforces the re quirement that candidates must disclose where c ampaign money comes from and how it is s pent. This requirement has created a complex set of rules that the FEC must administer. The FEC places reports on the public record within 48 hours after they have been received and computerizes the data contained in the reports. If the FEC discovers irregularities or viola- tions of the law, either through its own internal audits or through a complaint filed by the public, it has the authority to seek civil enforcement of the law. The FEC first seeks compliance through conciliation, but it may file a lawsuit when conciliation fails. The FEC administers the public funding of presidential elections. It certifies federal pay- ments to primary candidates, general election nominees, and national nominating conven- tions. It also audits recipients of federal funds and may require repayment to the U.S. Treasury if a candidate makes nonqualified campaign expenditures. Because of the complexity of the disclosure requirements and the concern that these requirements discourage some individuals from running for federal office, the FEC provides information through a toll-free telephone line; a Website, (www.fec.gov) publications; seminars; regulations, which clarify the law; and advisory opinions, which interpret the law in specific, factual situations. An example of information provided on the FEC Website is a brochure on notice requirements for political ads and solicitations. The legitimacy of the Federal Election Commission to enforce campaign finance law and the provisions of the FECA was recently upheld by the Supreme Court in Federal Elections Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (533 U.S. 431, 121 S. Ct. 2351, 150 L.Ed.2d 461 [2001]). In that case, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) sued the Colorado state REPUBLICAN PARTY for violating the spending limits of Federal Election Cam- paign Act. The Party counterclaimed, asserting NATIONAL POLITICAL PARTY FUNDRAISING, 2002 TO 2008 SOURCE: Federal Election Commission Web site, available online at http://fec.gov (accessed August 27, 2009). a Totals include non-federal funds; after 2002, use of non-federal funds was prohibited by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Dollars raised (in millions) 2002 a 2004 2006 2008 500 400 300 200 100 0 277.8 162.1 392.4 404.3 243.0 130.8 427.6 260.1 Republicans Democrats Year Federal Election Commission ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 374 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION constitutional challenge to FECA, arguing that the attempts by the FEC to limit independent expenditures in connection with a senatorial campaign violated free speech rights. By a 5–4 majority, the Court held that FECA limits on parties’ coordinated expenditures are not unduly burdensome to parties. The Court also found the expenditure limits comported with First Amendment’s free speech and associational guarantees. Finally, the Court found that coordinated expenditure limits should be treated the same as FECA limits on individuals’ and nonparty groups’ cash con- tributions when determining their validity. This was the most important case the Supreme Court had handed down since Buckley concerning the powers of the FEC to enforce campaign finance laws. Despite the concern of many observers that the high court might strike down the ability of the FEC to regulate campaign contributions, the Court in the Colorado case affirmed the FEC power. The decision reaffirmed the Buckley contribution/ expenditure distinction while simultaneously reinforcing the government’s power to control furtive contributions. This decision has impor tant implications concerning the FEC ability to enforce the new campaign-finance reform act passed in 2002. Popularly known as McCain-Feingold, after the sponsors of the legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81) imposes restric- tions on the financing of political parties and candidates in the United States. The primary goal of the BCRA is to ban soft money, which is money given by corporations and other large donors for party-building and electioneering communications, and the FEC would have the responsibility to put the BCRA into effect. Senator JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), the chief sponsor of BCRA, said of the Colorado case, “Clearly, this decision demonstrates that McCain- Feingold restrictions on campaign contributions are constitutional, and our opponents will have to find some other excuse not to enact laws to restore Americans’ confidence in our politi cal system.” While the Court’s Colorado decision seems to bode well for the FEC ability to enforce the BCRA, there were still questions whether the act would be effectively enforced. Since its incep- tion, the FEC has been a lightening rod for criticism from both parties. Campaign finance reform opponents and prop onents alike ques- tion whether the nature of the FEC will prevent it from successfully implementing the law. Senator McCain has already suggested that the FEC was trying to “emasculate” the law through the efforts of commissioners appointed by President GEORGE W. BUSH, who signed the BCRA legislation reluctantly. Others have suggested that the problem with FEC goes beyond its ability to enforce existing election laws and that since it is normally a panel that is split evenly between Republican and DEMOCRATIC PARTY members, it is inherently biased against third parties. But while suggestions have been made to change the nature of the FEC by making it more indepen- dent or eliminating it altogether, it remain ed the nation’s primary enforcer of state and federal election laws at the end of the twentie th century. It has entered the twenty-first century by establishing a Website with extensive infor- mation, by making campaign data from past elections more easily accessible, and developing a new electronic filing system. FURTHER READINGS Federal Election Commission Website. Available online at www.fec.gov (accessed September 19, 2009). NPR: Talk of the Nation. 2002. Interview with Senator John McCain. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio (October 21). Richards, Eric. 2002. “Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee: Implications for Parties, Corporate Political Dialogue, and Campaign Finance Reform.”American Business Law Journal (fall). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at www. gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed September 19, 2009). CROSS REFERENCES Democratic Party; Elections; Republican Party FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the federal agency responsible for coordinating emergency planning, prepared- ness, risk reduction, response, and recovery. The agency works closely with state and local governments by funding emergency programs and providing technical guidance and training. These coordinated activities at the federal, state, and local levels ensure a broad-based emergency program to insure public safety and protect GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY 375 property. FEMA is prepared to respond to all types of emergencies, including natural disasters such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes, and human-caused events such as toxic chemical spills, problems at NUCLEAR POWER plants, and nuclear war. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) came into the national spotlight in the aftermath of the SEPTEMBER 11TH ATTACKS, in which terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and seriously damaged the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. Shortly after those attacks, FEMA fully activated the Federal Response Plan. The agency’s Emergency Re- sponse Team was immediately deployed to the attack sites. In the weeks following the September 11, 2001, attacks, FEMA employees work ed relent- lessly in a massive rescue and recovery effort at the World Trade Center site. More than 1,500 employees of FEMA and more than 6,500 other federal employees took part in the effort. Tens of thousands of tons of debris were removed from the site in New York and taken to a landfill on Staten Island. Several hundred bodies were discovered, although few people were found alive in the first days following the attack. The clean-up effort continued into 2002. FEMA also established programs to assist victims of the attacks. The agency designated more than $11 million for crisis counseling funds to assist victims and others affected by the attacks in New York City. FEMA likewise established assistance and benefits programs for victims of the attacks, including mortgage and rental assistance for those who suffered financial hardships due to the attacks. In March 2003 the agency announced it had released $250 million in grant money to state and local government agencies for costs associated with pensions given to the surviving spouses and children of police officers and firefighters killed in the collapse of the World Trade Center. FEMA was established in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH as an independent agency pursuant to Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 41, 943), and Executive Orders No. 12,127 (March 31, 1979) (Federal Emergency Manage- ment Agency) and No. 12,148 (July 20, 1979) (Federal Emergency Management). FEMA be- came part of the DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY in 2003. The previous exemplary image of FEMA was tarnished by its poor response to Hurricane Katrina, which hit the Gulf Coast on August 26, 2005. When the levees broke in New Orleans on August 29, much of the city was quickly underwater. Thousands of people who had not been able to leave the city were left without food, water, shelter, or a way to leave. FEMA did not respond quickly or effectively to the most devastating natural disaster in U.S. history. Some in Congress concluded that FEMA was beyond rehabilitation and suggested the crea- tion of a new agency. However, in 2006, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Reform Act. The law reorganized FEMA, gave it more authority to deal with issues that were present with Katrina, and mandated a more robust preparedness mission. The FEMA ad- ministrator now reports directly to the secretary of homeland security and serves as the principal advisor to the president on all emergency management issues. FEMA has ten regional offices, which are the primary means by which the agency’sprograms are carried out at the state and local levels. The regional directors are the FEMA director’s principal representatives in contacts and relation- ships with federal, state, regional, and local agencies; industry; and other public and private groups. They are responsible for accomplishing within their region the national program objec- tives established by the agency, and they work with the director to develop national policy. FEMA developed the Federal Response Plan, a program for quickly responding to any type of catastrophic disaster. When, for example, an earthquake causes substantial damage and dislocation to a city or region, FEMA moves emergency teams into the area and coordinates efforts to restore public services and to provide food and shelter for those displaced by the natural disaster. FEMA’s telecommunications and computer systems are used as a hub operation, providing support services for day- to-day emergency activities. FEMA also works with state and local governments to develop emergency response plans and to provide training and technical support to these agencies through its Emergency Management Institute. FEMA includes the Federal Insurance Ad- ministration (FIA), which administers the Na- tional Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and the National Crime Insurance Program (NCIP). GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 376 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY The NFIP makes flood insurance available to residents of communities that adopt and enforce the program’s floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood losses. Over 18,000 communities participate in NFIP, a self- supporting program requiring no taxpayer funds to pay claim or operating expenses. The NCIP authorizes the FIA to sell crime insurance at affordable rates in any eligible state. The NCIP offers protection to home and business owners against financial loss from BURGLARY and ROBBERY. The U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), ano- ther FEMA agency, provides leadership, coordi- nation, and support for FEMA activities in the areas of fire prevention and control, hazar dous materials, and emergency medical services. The USFA develops and disseminates fire safety information to the fire service and the general public. Through its National Fire Academy, the USFA develops and delivers training and education programs to fire service personnel. The USFA is also responsible for the activities of the National Fire Data Center and for the management of the National Emergency Train- ing Cent er, in Emmitsburg, Maryland. The USFA works closely with the public and private sectors to reduce fire deaths, injuries, and property losses. FEMA External Affairs directorate serves as the focal point of contact for the public, the media, PUBLIC INTEREST groups, state and local government organizations, Congress, and foreign governments. The directorate provides the direc- tor, the director’sstaff,andtheagencieswithin FEMA with advice on how to develop and execute programs in the areas of congressional affairs and public and intergovernmental affairs. FURTHER READINGS 2009 U.S. Government Manual. Available online at www. gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed December 21, 2009). Burns, Linda, ed. 2006. FEMA: An Organization in the Crosshairs. Hauppage, N.Y.: Novinka Books. Cooper, Christopher. 2007. Disaster: Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security. New York: Holt. FEMA. www.fema.gov (accessed December 21, 2009.) Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. 2001. FEMA’s Response to the September 11th Attacks. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) was created by Congress in 1967 (28 U.S.C.A. § 620) to enhance the growth of JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION in federal courts. It has become the agency in the judicial branch for planning and policy research, systems develop ment, and continuing education for judges and court personnel. It is located in the THURGOOD MARSHALL Federal Judiciary Building, in Washington, D.C. Because of increasing caseloads and the growing complexity of t he law, court adm- inistration has be come an important part of the judicial branch. Congress gave the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) a broad mandate to improve the performance of the courts and judges through research, planning, and education. The FJC conducts research on the operation of federal courts and coordinates similar research with other public and private persons and agencies. The FJC works with its state-court counterpart, the National Center for State Courts, which is located in Williamsburg, Virginia, on issues that are common to state and federal courts. The staff of the FJC has conducted research on the workings of different rules of federal procedure and on topics such as the role of court-appointed experts. The FJC also conducts empirical studies on the courts, analyzing the ways in which different federal courts process certain types of cases. In addi- tion, it provides support to judicial systems in foreign countries. The research and planning efforts of the FJC extend to providing support for the JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES . The Judicial Conference is composed of the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chie f judge from each CIRCUIT COURT of appeals, the chief judge of the Court of International Trade, and a district judge from each circuit. The conference is the federal judiciary’s central policy-making organ and the federal court’s chief liaison with Congress. It meets twice per year and functions through a system of 25 committees that focus on particular judicial and administrative issues. The FJC research support to these committees is critical to their effectiveness. The FJC has also had a role in the intro- duction of computers and automated data pro- cessing to the court system. It has developed materials to help courts around the United States move from tracking cases in large ledger books to using computer database systems. Continuing education for judges and court personnel is another major responsibility of the GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER 377 FJC. The FJC presents seminars and other types of training that help the federal courts prepare for legislative changes in criminal and CIVIL LAW. Topical programs in areas such as IMMIGRATION law and SENTENCING guidelines are among the FJC educational offerings. The FJC also prepares handbooks and other written materials designed to teach new judges and court personnel how to carry out their duties fairly and efficiently. The basic FJC policies and activities are determined by its board, which includes two judges of the circuit courts of appeals, three judges of the district courts, and one BANKRUPTCY judge. The Judicial Conference elects these members for four-year terms. The chief justice of the Supreme Court acts as chair, and the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is also a non-elected member. In 2008 the FJC had a staff of 127 and provided 277 educational programs for nearly 12,000 federal judge and staff participants. The FJC has relied increasingly on the use of broadcasting to deliver educational and infor- mational programming through its Federal Judicial Television Network. The FJC’s budget for 2010 is approximately $27.5 million. FURTHER READINGS Federal Judicial Center 2008 Annual Report. Available online at www.fjc.gov (accessed May 17, 2009). U.S. Government Manual Website. Available online at www. gpoaccess.gov/gmanual (accessed May 17, 2009). FEDERAL JURISDICTION See JURISDICTION. FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) regulates the waterborne foreign and domestic offshore commerce of the United States; ensures that U.S. international trade is open to all nations on fair and equitable terms; and protects against unauthorized activity in the waterborne commerce of the United States. The FMC reviews agreements made by groups of common carriers (those who operate ships for commercial purposes), ensures that carriers charge rates on file with the FMC, and guarantees equal treatment to carriers and those who ship their goods. The FMC also ensures that adequate levels of financial responsibility are maintained for the indemnification of passengers who sail on commercial passenger ships. The commission comprises a chairman and four commissioners, who are appointed by the president. The FMC was established by Reorganization Plan No. 7 of 1961 (5 U.S.C.A. app.), effective August 12, 1961. It is an independent agency that regulates shipping under the following statutes: the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C.A. app. at 1701–1720); the Shipping Act, 1916; the Merchant Marine Act, 1920; the Foreign Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C.A. app. at 1710a); the Intercoastal Shipping Act, 1933 (46 U.S.C.A. app. at 843 et seq.); and certain provisions of the Act of November 6, 1966 (46 U.S.C.A. app. at 817(d), 871(e)). The commission reviews agreements made by common carriers, terminal operators (i.e., those who operate the docking facilities in harbors), and other persons subject to the shipping statutes. The FMC also monitors activities under all effective or approved agree- ments, for compliance with the provisions of the law and its rules, orders, and regulations. The FMC accepts or rejects TARIFF filings, including filings dealing with service contracts, of common carriers engaged in foreign and domestic offshore commerce of the United States, or conferences of such carriers. The FMC regulates the rate of return of carriers in domestic offshore trades. It has the authority to grant exemptions from tariff requirements. The commission issues licenses to persons, partnerships, corporations, and associations desiring to engage in ocean freight forwarding activities. Shipowners and the operators of passenger ships that carry more than fifty passengers are required to obtain certificates from the FMC that demonstrate that they have the financial resources and responsibility to pay judgments for PERSONAL INJURY or death, or to refund fares in the event that voyages are canceled. When a violation of the shipping laws is alleged or suspected, the FMC is authorized to investigate and may take administrative action to start formal proceedings, to refer matters to other government agencies, or to bring about voluntary agreement between the parties. It also may conduct formal investigations and hearings on its own motion and may adjudicate formal complaints. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 378 FEDERAL JURISDICTION . Stat. 41 05 [38 U.S. C.A. § 40 51]). Originally called the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, it was renamed in March 1999 as part of the Veterans Enhancement Act GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD. BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION 3 74 FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION constitutional challenge. 2009. ILLUSTRATION BY GGS CREATIVE RESOURCES. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION OF GALE, A PART OF CENGAGE LEARNING. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3 RD E DITION FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 373 contributions