en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_district_court

The sentence incorrectly lists injury claims on federal property or caused by a federal employee as part of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims' jurisdiction.

Official Court of Federal Claims materials describe that court's jurisdiction as primarily money claims founded on the Constitution, statutes, regulations, or contracts with the United States, and they list examples such as contract claims, bid protests, tax claims, takings claims, vaccine injury claims, and patent/copyright claims. They do not include ordinary tort/personal-injury claims caused by federal employees.

By contrast, the federal judiciary's own FTCA guidance states that the Federal Tort Claims Act covers claims for personal injury, property damage, or death arising from the alleged negligence of federal employees acting within the scope of their duties. Those are FTCA claims, not ordinary Court of Federal Claims cases.

So the article's example is incorrect: suits for injuries caused by federal employees are generally handled under the FTCA rather than as Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction.

This sentence understates both totals.

The Federal Judicial Center's list of impeachments includes 15 members of the federal judiciary who were impeached by the House: John Pickering, Samuel Chase, James H. Peck, West H. Humphreys, Mark W. Delahay, Charles Swayne, Robert W. Archbald, George W. English, Harold Louderback, Halsted L. Ritter, Harry E. Claiborne, Alcee L. Hastings, Walter L. Nixon, Samuel B. Kent, and G. Thomas Porteous, Jr.

Of those, 8 were convicted by the Senate and removed from office: Pickering, Humphreys, Archbald, Ritter, Claiborne, Hastings, Nixon, and Porteous.

Even if one excluded Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase from the count and looked only at lower-court judges, the number impeached would still be 14, not 12. So the statement "twelve ... and seven" is incorrect under any ordinary reading.

The sentence is inaccurate because it treats all three listed courts as examples of districts that require an additional bar examination on federal law.

Current official court admission pages show different requirements:

• Southern District of Ohio: applicants must be members in good standing of the Ohio bar and attend the Federal Practice Seminar before applying. The page does not describe a separate bar exam.
• Northern District of Florida: applicants must complete an online Attorney Admission Tutorial and have their Florida Bar status verified. Again, the page does not describe a separate bar exam.
• District of Puerto Rico: this court does still require an examination approved by its District Examination Committee and explains the subjects tested.

So the article's sentence is wrong as written because two of its three examples no longer fit the description of courts requiring an additional bar examination.

This sentence gets both the category and the percentage wrong.

In the federal judiciary's 2007 Judicial Business report, nationwide district-court criminal filings were 68,413 total cases. In that same report, immigration filings were a much smaller subset: 16,722 cases. The report then states that 71 percent of all immigration cases were filed in the five southwestern border districts (Arizona, New Mexico, Southern District of California, Southern District of Texas, and Western District of Texas).

So the article incorrectly transforms that into a claim that 75 percent of all criminal cases nationwide were filed in those districts. The official number was 71 percent, and it applied to immigration cases, not all criminal cases.

This is a straightforward arithmetic error.

The federal judiciary states that there are 94 U.S. district courts in total. The preceding sentence in the article says 56 districts require admission in the state where the district court sits. If 56 courts are already in that first category, then the number of 'other' district courts must be 38, not 39.

Because 56 + 39 = 95, the sentence cannot be correct as written.