District Courts are Courts of Special Jurisdiction
I quote federal judge Leavy in Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., 73 F.Supp. 288.
“When we go to the other side of this question we begin first with the statement that is not subject to dispute or contradiction; which is that a United States District Court is purely a creature of the legislative branch of the government, generally provided for by the Constitution, but not, in a stricter sense, a constitutional court. Congress undoubtedly has the power to abolish these courts entirely, give them another name, or dispense with the services that they render. Certainly in the lifetime of some of us we know we have changed what was once the Circuit Courts and gave them a new name, outlined their duties, and made them the `District Courts'; provided for an appellate court, designated the Circuit Court of Appeals. Now there is some legislation pending to change the name again somewhat, if not, the powers. This Court is a creature of the Congress, and its jurisdiction, in reference to conferring and depriving it of jurisdiction comes from the Congress. . . . The District Courts and even the Circuit Courts were deprived of jurisdiction that theretofore had been conferred upon them. It was placed in a new court, called the Emergency Court of Appeals, and the act even went so far as to deny the District Courts the right to pass upon any feature of constitutionality in either civil or criminal litigation involved in O.P.A law and regulations.” [emphasis mine.]
Judge Leavy then went on to quote Assessors v. Osborne, 9 Wall. 76 U.S. 567 at 574,
‘District Courts are courts of special jurisdiction, and therefore, they cannot take jurisdiction of any case, either civil or criminal, where they are not authorized to do so by an Act of Congress’, – he said it is – “a leading case, and has not been distinguished, modified or over-ruled.” [emphasis his.]