Final answer:
Early courtrooms were often makeshift, with traveling judges and limited facilities, in contrast to modern formal and structured courtrooms. The jurisdiction of courts like the district court has also broadened significantly. The Supreme Court's proceedings now hold ceremonial traditions, illustrating a more developed system of authority enactment.
Step-by-step explanation:
The arrangement of the courtroom in the past differed significantly from modern courtrooms. In comparison to today's federal court system, which has evolved over more than two hundred years, the early courtrooms were sometimes makeshift and not always in a dedicated judicial building. For example, during the formative years of the United States, the Supreme Court did not have a permanent home and shared space with Congress, with limited facilities. The circuit courts also did not have their own judges originally; local district judges and Supreme Court justices traveled between courts which were often temporary setups in various towns.
Modern federal courtrooms tend to have a more formal and consistent arrangement. A typical United States courtroom might have the jury, judge, and witness stand in designated areas, and the defense and prosecution sitting at tables in specific locations within the room. The jurisdiction of courts like the district court now extends broadly, in contrast to the early judiciary where their jurisdiction was narrow and geographically limited.
Furthermore, now the Court proceedings, such as those of the Supreme Court, are ceremonial with formal entrances and traditions such as the chanting of the Court's marshal. This ceremonial aspect highlights the difference in how authority is enacted in the modern era compared to the bare-bones beginnings of the nation's highest court.