Congressional Power to Limit Jurisdiction

Question 1

Exceptions cannot:

Answer 1

Infringe on executive power

Make and direct Outcomes (Klein)

Question 2

Ex parte Mccardle

Answer 2

A writ of habeas corpus is a court order that brings a defendant who is in jail or government custody in front of a judge and requires the government to prove that there is a valid reason the defendant is in jail or is being held.

Rule of Law

Congress can remove S Ct’s jurisdiction over appeals from habeus that had just been granted

Although the United States Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is derived from Article III of the Constitution, it is conferred subject to whatever exceptions and regulations Congress chooses to make.

Facts:

Mcardle was held in military custody for writing articles that violated reconstruction act

He filed writ of habeus corpus saying that he was being held unconstitutionally

Denied on basis that reconstruction acts were under constitution

Appealed denial of writ to supreme court under a statute that allowed SC to hear denial of writ of habeus corpus

That statute was repealed and so SC could not hear it

Reason: appellate jurisdiction is conferred by the constitution not congress but congress can make exceptions

Powers of the act are given by the constitution and regulated by the act

Dismissed for want of jurisdiction

Question 3

US v. Klein

Answer 3

Two problems and holding: infringing on judiciary by directing outcome in case & pardon power (and other justice looks at it as one whole issue)

Congress cannot use jurisdictional rules to control judicial outcomes. (When congress lacks a substantive power- as with a presidential pardon) conclusive and preclusive of which congress has no power

Rule of Law

Based on the principle of separation of powers in the United States Constitution, the legislative branch may not impair or direct the exclusive powers of the judicial or executive branches.

Facts

1863 federal statute provided that if your land was seized during civil war you could obtain a remedy if you had not offered aid or comfort to enemy during the war

After, SC subsequently held southerners accepting presidential pardon could secure return of their property

Congress added statutory provision to appropriations bill saying no pardon is admissible as evidence in federal court

Klein who had been pardoned and inherited Wilson’s estate went to court of claims to recover property that had been seized, US government dismissed his case for lack of jursidiction

Supreme Court said unconstitutional

Under the Constitution’s grant of power to Congress to make “such exceptions to appellate jurisdiction” as it deems appropriate, Congress could permissibly limit the ability of the Supreme Court to hear certain cases on appeal. However, in this case, Congress’s 1870 law did more than just make exceptions to the Court’s appellate jurisdiction. It went beyond that to actually require the Court to determine it was without jurisdiction if it found that a plaintiff was entitled to property rights based on a presidential pardon. This effectively required the Supreme Court to reach a certain result; it prescribed the rule of decision in a particular case. This is an impermissible extension of Congress’s power and is thus unconstitutional.

Judgment for Klein is affirmed because congress over stepped bounds and violated principles of separation of powers