On September 24, 1789, George Washington signed “An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States.” The Constitution had promised one Supreme Court and allowed Congress to create lower courts. The Judiciary Act supplied the machinery: judges, districts, circuits, officers and jurisdiction.
Written and fact-checked by the Discover Today in History editorial team.
← Return to Today in History: September 24 · Explore Major Historical Events
A blank space in the Constitution
Article III of the Constitution is brief. It vests federal judicial power in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress might establish. It protects judges’ tenure during good behavior and prevents their salaries from being reduced, but it does not specify the Court’s size, map the lower judiciary or create the officers needed to make judgments effective.
That silence was intentional enough to allow political choice, but it produced urgent practical questions for the First Congress. Would state courts hear most federal cases? How would citizens appeal? Where would federal judges sit? What relationship would exist between national law and state legal systems? These were questions about power as much as administration.
The Senate took the lead. A committee chaired by Connecticut senator Oliver Ellsworth drafted the bill. Ellsworth had helped shape the Constitution and understood the compromises beneath its language. The Senate passed its version in July; the House debated and amended it. Washington’s signature on September 24 made the result law.
The court system Congress built
The act created a Supreme Court consisting of a chief justice and five associate justices. It divided the country into thirteen judicial districts and grouped districts into three circuits. District courts handled specified federal matters, including admiralty cases. Circuit courts possessed original jurisdiction in important civil and criminal matters and heard some appeals.
The system did not yet resemble a modern hierarchy staffed by separate judges at every level. Supreme Court justices were required to “ride circuit,” traveling to sit with district judges. The burden kept justices away from the capital and exposed them to difficult roads, weather and lodging. Congress reduced the requirement over time, but circuit riding survived into the nineteenth century.
The act also created the offices of attorney general and United States marshals and provided for district attorneys. These officials gave the judiciary an operating body. Courts needed clerks to maintain records, marshals to execute writs and prosecutors to represent federal interests. A constitutional branch became an institution through jobs, schedules and geography.
Jurisdiction and federalism
The most controversial provisions concerned which cases federal courts could hear and how the Supreme Court could review decisions from state courts. Section 25 authorized review when state-court decisions rejected a federal claim or upheld a state action challenged under federal law. That mechanism was crucial to the eventual supremacy and uniform interpretation of federal law.
At the same time, Congress left substantial authority with state courts. The judiciary was a layered system rather than a complete replacement. Federal and state law would coexist, overlap and sometimes conflict. The statute’s design reflected both nationalist ambitions and fear of distant federal power.
One provision, Section 13, later became central to Marbury v. Madison in 1803. Chief Justice John Marshall concluded that Congress had attempted to expand the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond the Constitution and treated that portion as invalid. The case became a foundation of judicial review, although the broader history of that doctrine is more complex than a single decision.
The first appointments
Washington moved quickly. The day after signing the act, he sent the Senate nominations for the new Supreme Court, including John Jay as chief justice. The Senate confirmed six nominees on September 26. Federal judges, attorneys and marshals followed, turning the statutory map into a functioning branch.
The Supreme Court first assembled in New York in February 1790. Travel delays prevented business on the scheduled opening day. Its earliest sessions were quiet by later standards, and the justices’ circuit duties consumed much of their time. The Court’s authority grew gradually through cases, political conflict and public acceptance.
A design repeatedly rebuilt
The Judiciary Act of 1789 was foundational, not permanent in every detail. Congress changed the number of justices, reorganized circuits, created new districts and revised jurisdiction. The Judiciary Act of 1801 and its repeal became a fierce partisan struggle. The nineteenth century brought expansion with new states and eventually a separate system of circuit courts of appeals.
Yet recognizable elements of the 1789 design remain: a Supreme Court at the apex, geographically organized lower federal courts and a statutory framework through which Congress defines much of federal jurisdiction. The act demonstrated how much of constitutional government depends on ordinary legislation after a constitution is ratified.
Why September 24 matters
The signing did not make the judiciary instantly powerful. It made the judiciary possible. Article III supplied authority; the act supplied structure. From six justices and thirteen districts emerged an institution that would interpret federal law, decide disputes across state lines and review claims about constitutional limits.
The enduring lesson is institutional. Written constitutions announce principles, but governments operate through offices, procedures, budgets and people. On September 24, 1789, the United States filled one of its Constitution’s most consequential blank spaces.
Continue reading: the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the May 27 Daily Edition, and the Wall Street bombing.
Sources and method
This article draws on the National Archives’ digitized act and transcript, the Senate Historical Office, and the federal judiciary’s institutional histories. Numbers and offices reflect the 1789 statute; later developments are distinguished from what the act itself established.
