What does a District Court Judge do?

Article Details
  • Written By: Jill Gonzalez
  • Edited By: Michelle Arevalo
  • Last Modified Date: 24 November 2019
  • Copyright Protected:
    Conjecture Corporation
  • Print this Article
Free Widgets for your Site/Blog
The gonorrhea bacterium is the strongest known organism; it can pull the equivalent of 100,000 times its weight.  more...

December 6 ,  1877 :  Edison demonstrated the first sound recording.  more...

A district court judge works for the United States District Court system. These individuals are federal judges, and they must be appointed to their positions. These are not jobs that a judge or other legal professional can simply apply for, regardless of how much education or experience that person might have.

The U.S. Congress establishes the number of district court judges within each district court as part of the judicial Code. A district court judge, as well as all federal judges, is appointed by the President of the United States. These judges are appointed for terms based on their good reputations, but the Senate has to approve all nominees before they can officially accept a job offer.

In this specific court system, a district court judge is responsible for hearing all categories of federal cases. This includes civil and criminal matters that fall under federal jurisdiction. During the course of a trial, district court judges are responsible for monitoring the testimony of witnesses, ruling on the admissibility of evidence, and settling any disputes that may arise between defense attorneys and prosecutors.

When presiding over a trial, a district court judge may have to establish new rules if standard procedures do not already exist, according to the law. These judges are also responsible for ensuring that court proceedings protect the rights of everyone involved in the trial, including witnesses, jurors, and legal professionals. They must also ensure that all legal proceedings are fair and just.


It is quite likely that a district court judge will have to preside over a pretrial hearing in order to determine if enough evidence exists to warrant holding a full trial. When presiding over criminal cases, these judges are responsible for deciding whether a defendant should be held in jail until the time of the trial, or if that individual should be eligible for release on bail. One of the most important duties of these judges is to pronounce sentencing if a defendant is found guilty by a jury. In cases where there is no jury, district court judges are solely responsible for rendering a verdict.

When not presiding over a trial, a district court judge usually spends his work hours in a private office, referred to as his chambers. His job duties include reviewing motions and legal briefs, holding hearings with lawyers, writing opinions about legal decisions, and researching a variety of different legal issues that may pertain to a current trial. This kind of judge is also usually responsible for overseeing his administrative staff.


You might also Like


Discuss this Article

Post 5

@titans62 - You are correct and to be honest a federally appointed judge is a very high ranking position, even if is at the lowest federal level in District Court.

I know that the Appeals Court is the next higher level, but there are even fewer judges that make up this level and then the Supreme Court only has nine justices.

That being said there are at most only a couple hundred federally appointed judges in the country, if even that.

That being said, it is safe to say that if a person were to become a federally appointed judge that will probably be the highest position they will hold as a judge, unless of course they can separate themselves and

go even higher, say to the Supreme Court.

I am wondering on average what the amount of experience a judge needs to have in order to be federally appointed? I know that it is all up to who appoints them, but they have to have a bit of experience in the field to acquire the ability to hold their position.

Post 4
@matthewc23 - Despite most of the time these judges have a lot of experience, there is nothing that keeps the president, the person who appoints the judges, from just naming a person with no legal experience.

Now any candidate has to be confirmed by the Senate, so there will probably not be someone serving that should not be there and most of the time when people have their nomination denied it is due to political reasons.

A lot of times federally appointed judges are judges that are seen as possibly being people that could fill a future vacant position on the Supreme Court, but these are usually reserved for the utmost qualified of judges.

A Supreme Court justice does not necessarily already need to be a federally appointed judge, but if one were to look throughout history federally appointed judges are usually those that become future justices for the Supreme Court.

Post 3

@kentuckycat - I have to agree as far as appointing judges goes, but only because it is a position that is vital to this particular branch of our federal government and experience is vital to the position.

The one downside to appointing someone to such a position is that they are appointed for life and by a politician, sometimes as a favor.

When this is done, usually the judge will make rulings that will favor the political party or simply the ideology of those that appointed them and thus creates a cycle of legal influence that reaches all branches of government.

I really wish there was a better way in which to appoint judges, but to my knowledge there is not really a good way to ensure that people qualified for the position will fill the position and not just someone with little legal experience.

Post 2

I have always thought that in order for a judge to become a federally appointed judge they must acquire years of experience in the legal field as a federal case is usually going to be more important than a state or local case.

I think that it is a good idea to appoint these judges, simply because if these judges were elected by the people, then the people may end up electing someone that is not qualified for a position.

In a local election, say for county judge, one could get away with this, even though anyone wants someone with experience, but in a case that is important and can set legal precedents for the future laws of this country to be constructed around it is important to appoint someone that knows exactly what they are doing and not necessarily someone that is merely popular with the voters.

Post your comments

Post Anonymously


forgot password?