Basically Law

Read the decision here.

Issue.  Does Congress have the power to withdraw jurisdiction from the Supreme Court to hear an appeal after jurisdiction has already been given?

Background.  McCardle, a resident of Mississippi during Reconstruction, was arrested by military authorities for publishing incendiary and libelous materials in violation of the Reconstruction Acts.  McCardle sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal courts.  The federal courts had recently been empowered by Congress to issue such writs to prisoners held in state custody who challenge their detention on federal grounds.  The law allowed an inferior federal court to issue the writ (hear the case) and gave the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear any appeals of the lower court's decision.

The Circuit Court in Mississippi issued the writ, heard McCardle's case and determined it had no merit.  McCardle appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.  While the case was being heard in the Supreme Court, Congress passed, over a presidential veto, a law that took away the Supreme Court's power to hear such appeals.  The issue became did Congress have the power to strip the Supreme Court's power to hear such appeals.  The Supreme Court ruled that Congress did.

Court's Analysis.  The Supreme Court analyzed the plain language of the Constitution in making its decision.  Even though the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution and not Congress, the Constitution reads:

The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and such regulations, as the Congress shall make.

The language of the Constitution is plain.  Congress has the power to make exceptions and regulations to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction on any issue it sees fit.  Since Congress was within its constitutional power to revoke appellate jurisdiction, the Supreme Court could not hear the appeal and the denial of McCardle's habeas petition stands. 

My Analysis.  Based on the plain language of the Constitution, this decision is a no-brainer.  However, it does raise interesting issues.  Can Congress revoke appellate jurisdiction on a law just so the Supreme Court will not invalidate it?  Why would Congress want to revoke appellate jurisdiction - would it not lead to lower courts ruling differently which would lead to Congress.  What is one lower court upheld the law and another did not? 

This is one of those checks and balances issue where Congress can really abuse its powers, but it has not done so in our history.  And, in this matter, McCardle's writ was heard so he was not closed completely out of the federal courts.  Could Congress pass a law and then strip all federal courts of jurisdiction?  Would it?