Federal Courts
Fall 2012, Professor Stravitz
Congressional Power to Control Federal Jurisdiction of Lower Courts
Ordain & Establish Clause
Four Approaches:
1. Federal Courts must have full judicial power
a. This approach is rejected in Sheldon v. Still
2. Congressional Discretion to decide jurisdiction
3. Constitutional requirement for some federal courts
4. Specific constitutional limits
Article III § 1: The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
· Ordain & Establish Clause: This is the basis for Congress’s control of the jurisdiction of lower federal courts. Power is given to these courts by Congress.
o Congress can strip the court of jurisdiction over certain kinds of case and can grant jurisdiction to the extent of the judicial power.
o LIMITED BY****
§ SEPARATION OF POWERS
§ DUE PROCESS
§ EQUAL PROTECTION
Sheldon v. Sill
Summary of Case: Mortgage was assigned to another party, which created diversity of citizenship. Judiciary act limited diversity jurisdiction and said that it could not be created by assignment. New statute 28 U.S.C. 1359 would apply today if assignment was made for purpose of getting jurisdiction.
Held: Congress having the power to establish the courts, must define their jurisdiction. Court rejected the theory that inferior courts have all powers not given to SCOTUS.
· Constitution defines the limit of the judicial power of the United States but has not prescribed how much shall be exercised by lower federal courts.
o Statute that prescribes the jurisdiction of lower courts cannot be in conflict w/ the Constitution unless the statute confers power not enumerated in Article II § 2 which is the ceiling of the judicial power.
· Court also relied on Turner v. Bank of North America which interpreted the ordain & establish clause in this way.
· Congress is not bound to enlarge the form of jurisdiction to any form allowed by Constitution
Why did Congress exercise its discretion in Judiciary Act?
· Wanted to pick out who the judges were and wanted federal judges interpreting their own laws. Congress did not have to create lower courts. However, if Congress never exercised option to create lower federal courts then all judicial power would have to be in state courts.**
o This is the basis for CONCURRENT JURISDICTION of federal questions***
· Madisonian Compromise- this was the giving to Congress the power/option to create lower courts.
Congress could withdraw a specific category of cases b/c it defines the limits of their jurisdiction. However, may not be able to cut out category of cases b/c they don’t like SCOTUS interpretation.
· If Congress says no court shall any power to review anything arising under a certain statue then may impose on the SEPARATION OF POWERS
Hart’s Dialogue: Professor Hart argued that in light of Sheldon v. Sill and Congress’s apparent plenary power to define the jusridiction of the lower courts, the ultimate protector of constitutional rights must be state courts. State courts have a duty to vindicate the rights of citizens through the use of their general jurisdiction to hear cases.
· Supremacy clause- requires the state courts to hear constitutional cases & vindicate federal rights
· Can take away from state courts ONLY if provide exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts but only for certain things.
· Concerned that there may be due process concerns if Congress prevented you from appealing in federal court if you don’t file appeal in certain window of time. Don’t like idea of not being able to defend yourself.
Mandatory Jurisdiction & Justice Story- Justice Story argued that all powers in Article III § 2 must be vested somewhere and that Congress had to vest all judicial power in the lower federal courts.
**THREE LIMITS ON CONGRESS: Due Process, Separation of Powers & Equal Protection.
· What happens if Congress’s power to restrict lower federal courts if already taken power away from the state courts?
o If this was done then would have state court interpretations being controlling. Sager argues that one court must remain. If Congress took away SCOTUS appellate jursidiciton then would be setting up states to act unconstitutionally
o Professor Amar says that “all” modifies cases and thus all cases under 1-3 of Article III § 2(1) must be given to lower federal courts. Doesn’t have to give 4-9.
§ Doesn’t make sense if Congress never authorized its power.
Congressional Power to regulate SCOTUS Appellate Jurisdiction
Congress cannot get rid of appellate jurisdiction completely have to be something to except from*
Exceptions Clause
Article III Section 2:
Judicial power shall extend to:
· All cases, in law & equity arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and treaties
· All cases affecting ambassadors
· All cases of admiralty & maritime jurisdiction
· Controversies to which the United States shall be a party
· Controversies between two or more states
· Controversies between citizens of different states
· Controversies between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states
· Controversies between a state, or citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers & consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases before mentioned, SCOTUS shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law & fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.*** (Exceptions Clause)
Summary:
· SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over THREE categories of cases
· SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over all of the other cases and controversies, with such exceptions as Congress allows.
o General Rule: Congress has BROAD POWER to regulate the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS under the exceptions clause, including the power to remove appellate jurisdiction over a currently pending case.
Three Views of the Exceptions Clause:
1. Plenary Power- Exception Clause gave Congress plenary power to control the appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS
2. Limited View- Word “exceptions” only modifies the word “fact” and therefore, Congress can only limit appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS over questions of fact and not questions of law
3. Specific Constitutional Limits- congress cannot limit the Court’s appellate jurisdiction in a way that violates another provision of the Constitution
a. Bill of Attainder- Argument that removing appellate jurisdiction over claims of a readily identifiable group disfavored by Congress could be a method of legislative punishment and could act as a Bill of Attainder
i. Legislative Bills of Attainder are prohibited by Article I, Section 9.
b. Sixth Amendment- An exception to only cases where the defendant exercised his right to trial by jury instead of agreeing to a bench trial could violate 6th right to jury trial
c. Equal Protection- If the excluded cases involved those w/ rights deemed fundamental, or were excluded based on a prohibited classification of a certain group, then the exception to appellate jurisdiction of SCOTUS could violate equal protection clause.
Exception Clauses limited by:*********
a. Separation of Powers
b. Due Process
c. Equal Protection
Ex Parte McCardle
Facts: Constitutional challenge to suspension of SCOTUS ability to review appeals from judgment of circuit courts on habeas corpus claims. Judiciary Act of 1789 contained 1st statutory provisions for writs of habeas corpus, which were limited to prisoners held in custody or prisoner held under color of federal law, thus there was no relief for prisoners held by state governments. After Civil War, Congress passed an Act that allowed federal courts to issue a writ of habeas corpus for state prisoners held in violation of federal law. While plaintiff’s case was pending, plaintiff was a newspaper editor who was arrested for criticizing Reconstruction, Congress withdrew SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction under exceptions clause.
Analysis:
· Article I § 9 states that privilege of the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion, where public safety may require it. However, Court looks at the exceptions clause.
· Exceptions clause makes SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction wholly dependent upon Congress
o Here Congress took away the appellate jurisdiction to hear this type of case and without jurisdiction they don’t have power to proceed in the case.
Holding: SCOTUS held that this was okay and Congress had plenary authority to withdraw SCOTUS appellate jurisdiction. Court said that Congress’s statement that certain cases are outside of Court’s appellate jurisdiction is sufficient as a positive exception under the Exceptions Clause. Appellate jurisdiction of the court is not derived from acts of Congress but from the Constitution and it conferred to Congress the right to make exceptions.
· Only applied to appeals under the 1867 Act and not all appeals of the writ of habeas corpus b/c they may conflict w/ constitution.
· Unlike in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld , Congress only repealed one path to SCOTUS, which was the Military Reconstruction Act. So could still issue writ for prisoner held under color federal law but not state law.
o SCOTUS COULD STILL HEAR AN ORIGINAL PETITION FOR HABEAS FILED IN SCOTUS. Just could not hear ones appealed from a lower court under the Act of 1867.
· Not except a “case” or “class of cases” but rescinded a statutory right of appeal. B
Does McCardle give unlimited power to Congress?
· No because there needs to be a final arbiter of what the constitution means. Felker assumes that denial of all SCOTUS oversight of gate-keeping decisions would present a serious constitutional issue and should be avoided through statutory interpreatation.
· Besides EP problems, can Congress strip SCOTUS of jurisdiction for hearing cases about federal legislation that would change the Constitution and lower courts on jurisdiction?
o If this were a federal statute
§ Constitutionally permissible to take away from lower courts due to O & E clause
§ Also appears permissible to take away appellate jurisdictio
ir authority from the Ordain & Establish Clause
o Plaintiff argued that there was no way to review but he did not even try to get his violation appeal.
o Court expresses reservation over whether Congress can strip all of a court’s jurisdiction except for jurisdiction to pass on the constitutionality of the particular act, thereby leaving only enforcement power. Not an issue in the case b/c text of statute gave the Emergency Court of Appeals the opportunity to pass on constitutionality.
§ All or nothing may be required especially in a criminal case don’t want to allow a defendant not to be able to raise a defense but this was not at issue in the case. ************
· Government was allowed to bring criminal suits in district court but claimants could NOT file there suit here. This issue is discussed in Yakus
· Limitation on power of Congress to strip.
· May be a due process or exceptions clause concern
· Is this exclusive remedy inadequate?
o Court does not decide the issue but focuses on the fact that the appellant did not even try to use the statutorily provided method of appealing the decision.
Holding: Federal district court lacked jurisdiction to hear challenges to price control promulgated under the EPCA.
If Court had not set up the Emergency Court of Appeals: This would not be ok because it took power away from the state court and could not have had any place to assert defense. Congress cannot restrict state courts jurisdiction unless it gives exclusive jurisdiction to federal courts.******
Yakus v. United States
Facts: Government initiated a criminal prosecution in district court for violation of the Emergency Price Control Act. Defendant argued that the price controls were unconstitutional and the government contended that district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the defense b/c he had not raised the issue to the administrator or Emergency Court of Appeals.
Issue: Whether the validity of a regulation may be challenged in defense of a prosection for its violation although it had not been tested by the prescribed administrative procedure and complaint to the Emergency Court of Appeals?
Analysis:
· Defendant forfeited the opportunity to bring such a constitutional challenge by failing to use the prescribed administrative and judicial procedures.
o Don’t want to allow a procedural default but by not even attempting to go through the prescribed process the court was not going to look at the issue.
o May have been different result if he was still in the appeals process and being prosecuted.
· Criminal defendant could not argue that this was a violation of Due Process because there were procedures in place.
· No contention that statute is void on its face.
Holding: Under Lockerty, Congress had power to restrict jurisdiction of federal courts and to specify the Emergency Court of Appeals as the only forum to hear challenges to price controls.
· In this case it allows the upholding an unconstitutional law. As long as there is some court available for claims of constitutional right to be heard.
· Issue is more important in CRIMINAL CASES. Civil cases not as much concerns see Bowles
Dissent: Argued that under Marbury v. Madison, a federal court had the inherent power to determine the constitutionality of a statute that it was asked to apply. Concerned about separation of powers. Seems to say that court can uphold an unconstitutional law. Congress dictating result of judicial system because cannot challenge the statute while it is being enforced against you.
May be able to put final decision in administrative agency because an agency has judicial, executive, and legislative powers. Hart says need to have some court for claims of constitutional right to be heard.
Bowles v. Willingham
Civil case where the same issue was at play as in Yakus & Rutledge agrees that it should be upheld because there is a difference when it is a civil case. SCOTUS upheld a limitation on the power of a lower federal court to inquire into the validity of the regulation in civil action brought by the Administrator to enjoin a state court action brought to restrain issuance of an order by the administrator.
