CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Fall 2006, W.B. Fisch
Assignment #2
- Congressional Control over
Federal Court Jurisdiction
- Lower courts: Story,
J. v. Sheldon v. Sill: is Congress's discretion complete?
- Supreme Court's appellate
jurisdiction: Art. III s.2 par. 2 "exceptions clause"
- EX PARTE MCCARDLE, p.
38 (1869): Congress can withdraw a pending case from the Court's
jurisdiction: how far does it go?
- hypo:
ordinary diversity case reaches S.Ct. on
certiorari; while the case is pending, Congress enacts the following
statute: "Title 28, section 1254(1) [the statute authorizing the
Court to issue writs of certiorari to lower federal courts] is hereby
repealed." Must our diversity case now be dismissed?
- Omnibus Crime
proposal 1968, n. 5 p. 42: what would its effects be, and what
arguments can be made against its validity?
- U.S. v. Klein,
p. 40 (1872)
- exactly
what did the statute require the court to do?
- does
the decision represent a significant limitation on Congress' power?
- could
Congress repeal the statute giving S.Ct.
appellate jur. over
state court decisions?
- MARTIN V. HUNTER'S LESSEE,
p. 44 (1816). another Supreme Court jurisdictional statute: appellate
jurisdiction over decisions of state courts of last resort (§25 of
JA1789), sustained
- text
(Art. III §2 par. 2; Art. VI par. 2 ("supremacy clause"))
- policy
(concept of justice?) -- need for uniformity of interpretation
- Counterarguments
by Virginia
courts in denying constitutionality of app. jur.
- appellate
jur. infringes on
state sovereign equality -- what is Story's answer?
- Other ways to
achieve uniformity, less intrusive of state sovereignty: -- why would
they be less intrusive than appeal?
- removal
- exclusive
federal jurisdiction
- The Current Law on Appellate
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- Discretionary
jurisdiction and the "Rule of Four"
- "independent state ground" exception to S.Ct. appellate jur.
- rationale:
- Supreme Court can't
review state courts' decisions on state law, Murdock v. Memphis
(1875)
- Supreme Court can't
render advisory opinions, Herb v. Pitcairn (1945)
- Adequacy of state procedural ground: Henry v. Mississippi (1965)
- MICHIGAN V. LONG, p.
52 (1983): "plain statement" rule -- why is it needed?