FEDERAL COURTS AND FEDERAL SYSTEMS
SPRING 2006
PROFESSOR SALAMANCA
I. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON CONGRESS’ POWER TO LIMIT THE SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS
A. EX PARTE McCARDLE
1. FACTS OF EX PARTE McCARDLE – Congress validly repealed SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction for a writ of habeas corpus.
2. IMPORTANCE OF EX PARTE McCARDLE – While the Exceptions Clause expressly grants Congress power to create exceptions to SCOTUS’ appellate review, the extent of that power is not settled. These cases leave us with the questions of (1) whether the SCOTUS’ appellate jurisdiction is somewhat protected; or (2) whether Congress’ powers under the Exceptions Clause are plenary or limited.
B. THE EXCEPTIONS CLAUSE (III.2.2)
1. “In all other Cases before mentioned, the SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as Congress shall make.”
2. THE MADISONIAN COMPROMISE
a. The compromise consisted of the decision to give Congress, in article III, the power to create or not to create inferior federal courts, as well as the power to regulate the jurisdiction of all the federal courts, including the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
3. THE JUDICIARY ACT OF 1789
a. While the Constitution did not require Congress to create lower federal courts, Congress passed the Judiciary Act in 1789, which created lower federal courts and conferred appellate jurisdiction in SCOTUS over the lower federal courts and some state court decisions.
4. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW v. THE MODERN VIEW ON CONGRESS’ POWER TO LIMIT JURISDICTION
a. THE TRADITIONAL VIEW
i. The traditional view is that the exceptions clause means what it appears to say. It empowers Congress to make any exceptions that it pleases, even if such exceptions hurt the judicial process. Congress can allocate different forms of subject matter jurisdiction to different federal courts (Sheldon v. Sill). The traditional view in regards to SCOTUS is not clear because McCardle is a cryptic case. Under the traditional view, some persons believe that Congress may remove federal court subject matter jurisdiction over abortion, busing, pledge o
pellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS, 2) Congress exercised this power, and 3) Congress did not create lower federal courts, then the purpose of the extending clause would be frustrated.
B. THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS THESIS
1. “The exceptions must not be such as will destroy the essential role of the S. Ct. in the constitutional plan.”
a. TWO ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF SCOTUS
i. Resolve inconsistent and conflicting interpretations of fed’l law, particularly of the Constitution, by state and fed’l cts.
ii. Maintain the supremacy of fed’l law, particularly the Constitution, when it conflicts with state law or is challenged by state authority.
b. Under this theory, the Exceptions Clause should be interpreted accordingly: “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress may make, not inconsistent with the essential functions of the S.Ct. and the Constitution.”
