Skip to main content

What Can the Supreme Court Decide On?

Congress can limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme (and other federal) Courts. But what happens if the Supreme Court has already issued a ruling on a particular issue? Is it too late for Congress to remove jurisdiction? Historical precedent--including the Supreme Court's willingness to abide by Congress decision--says it's not too late.

Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution says:

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

This means that in certain rare cases, the Supreme Court can hear an 'original case', without it having to have been heard first in a lower court and then appealed to the Supreme Court. Most issues that the Supreme Court hears, though, must have been first appealed from a lower court. This also means that Congress can limit the Court's ability to hear appealed cases. It has done this a handful of times in the past. In the case known as Ex Parte McCardle, Congress had originally created a law

... [in] 1867 that allowed federal judges to issue writs of habeas corpus and hear appeals from circuit courts. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress repealed the statute.

At the time, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase said of the Congress action

We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution, and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.

But what about an issue that the Supreme Court has already ruled on? Can the Congress limit jurisdiction over that issue? I have found at least one precedent that says yes.

Congress enacted the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 in an effort to correct what it thought was an egregious decision that the Supreme Court had made, wherein workers were entitled to receive huge amounts of back-pay. The essence of the law was to

...returns the parties to the relative positions they occupied prior to...the decisions of the Supreme Court.

I was recently challenged on my interpretation that Congress could remove jurisdiction from the Supreme Court regarding abortion, effectively returning jurisdiction to the States and overturning Roe v. Wade. These actions by congress (and there are many others) seem to corroborate my point of view.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Thank you for commenting. If you have a Google/Blogger account, to be apprised of ongoing comment activity on this article, please click the "Subscribe" link below.

Popular posts from this blog

School Vouchers: "The Bramble Memo"

$429 million? What? Where? The legislative fiscal analyst for the State of Utah calculated the costs to the public schools over the next 13 years if school vouchers are implemented. It said the costs would be $5.5M in the first year, and $71M in the 13th year. Suddenly, the number I have started seeing thrown around was $429 million, the total costs for vouchers over 13 years. Where did that number come from? Enter the mysterious "Bramble Memo". In the past few days several of us (Jeremy, Utah Taxpayer, Craig, Sara, Urban Koda, Jesse, and me) have (sometimes?) enjoyed a lively discussion about school vouchers in Utah . Jeremy clarified to me the costs of the venture by linking to a copy of the Utah Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Impartial Analysis (LFA) of the costs of Vouchers , found on "The Senate Site". In my previous voucher article, I quoted some of Lavar Webb's article from last Sunday's Deseret News, wherein he stated that those total costs ...
66 comments
Read more

The Inhumanity of Bob Lonsberry: Waterboarding, Concentration Camps, and the the Bataan Death March

KNRS 570 radio talk show host Bob Lonsberry advocated waterboarding and other forms of torture during his show on April 21, 2009. More grotesquely, he was beaming with pride about his advocacy campaign. It's difficult to imagine then, that, by the same rationale, had Lonsberry been a German at the time of Hitler, or a Japanese during the Bataan Death March, that he would not have advocated torture of Jews in the concentration camps or the bayoneting and shooting of American soldiers on the Bataan trail. Torture, Torture, Everywhere! Nearly 80,000 American soldiers were captured by the Japanese in the To contemplate a discussion about whether or not torture is legal or whether it even works, it is first required to come to the conclusion that 'I am a child of God, but my adversary is a monkey'. Phillipines in 1942 and forced to march with no food and very little water for six days. If a man stumbled, if he didn't respond quickly to a command, or if he tried to get wat...
50 comments
Read more

Amazing Grace: Why Do So Many Mormons Not Get It?

Note on Comments for This Post: Somehow, blogger is displaying about 3 fewer comments than have actually been entered. I have added 3 comments, so that the last relevant ones will be shown. In addition, I have closed comments on this article. Please click on this link to continue commenting on the original article . Sorry for the inconvenience. In large part because of the many childish and tyrannical things we do to each other (and to ourselves), life sometimes seems to suck. God, however, did not intend it to be that way. Unfortunately, our worst tormentor is often ourselves. We Mormons mentally flagellate ourselves on a regular basis. God especially did not intend it to be this way. Instead, he hopes that we will look upward and see the Amazing Grace that he gives to us. We're so busy with the seeming enjoyment of miring ourselves in guilt, however, that we seldom even notice that his grace is at our fingertips. Amazing grace How sweet the sound That saved a wretch l...
44 comments
Read more