[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
388 views1 page

Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506

Congress passed legislation in 1867 that granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals of habeas corpus cases denied by circuit courts. However, after McCardle, an editor imprisoned by the military government of Mississippi, appealed his denied habeas petition to the Supreme Court under this 1867 law, Congress feared the Court would rule military Reconstruction unconstitutional and repealed the portion of the 1867 law granting the Court appellate jurisdiction over such cases. As a result, the Supreme Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction to hear McCardle's appeal, citing Article III allows Congress to make exceptions to and regulations over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, the Court noted the repeal only removed jurisdiction granted by the specific provision being challenged, not any pre-existing jurisdiction

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
388 views1 page

Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506

Congress passed legislation in 1867 that granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals of habeas corpus cases denied by circuit courts. However, after McCardle, an editor imprisoned by the military government of Mississippi, appealed his denied habeas petition to the Supreme Court under this 1867 law, Congress feared the Court would rule military Reconstruction unconstitutional and repealed the portion of the 1867 law granting the Court appellate jurisdiction over such cases. As a result, the Supreme Court found that it no longer had jurisdiction to hear McCardle's appeal, citing Article III allows Congress to make exceptions to and regulations over the Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, the Court noted the repeal only removed jurisdiction granted by the specific provision being challenged, not any pre-existing jurisdiction

Uploaded by

crlstinaaa
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Stripping the SC of jurisdiction

Case: Ex Parte McCardle [74 US 506] p. 42

Facts: In 1867 Congress empowered the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus, and one of its
provisions authorized the SC to hear appeals in cases where circuit courts denied applications for writ
of habeas corpus. After the Act of 1867 was passed, McCardle, a racist editor of a newspaper, was
imprisoned by Mississippi military govt, under the Reconstruction Act, for publishing material that
tended to "incite violence and impede Reconstruction." McCardle sought habeas corpus, alleging
"unlawful restraint by military force." His petition was denied by the circuit court and he appealed to
the SC under the 1867 Act. The SC hinted that it wanted to hold military Reconstruction
unconstitutional, and Congress, fearing this result, passed a repealing act before the decision in
McCardle's case. The act repealed the provision granting SC power to hear appeals in cases where
circuit courts denied applications for writ of habeas corpus, thereby stripping the SC from its power to
hear McCardle's case.

Issue: Did the SC has jurisdiction to hear the case? - No.

Reasoning:
○ Art. III, Sec. 2 of Constitution: " 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."
 So all fed question cases where SC does not have original jurisdiction, the SC
has appellate jurisdiction.
 So this is a fed question, b/c he says the act under which he's being held is
unconstitutional.
 SC has original jurisdiction for cases where state is a party involving foreign
officials
 So SC does not have jurisdiction (w/o the provision in the 1867 act) to decide
this case
• Chief Justice Chase stated that although the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is
derived from the Constitution, Art III says that the SC's jurisdiction is limited "under
such regulations as the Congress shall make." Since Congress first granted, but now
stripped the SC's jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the SC no longer has jurisdiction.
• The SC dismissed the case because they lacked jurisdiction.
• However, the opinion also noted that the repealing act only took away jurisdiction
from the SC which had previously been granted by the specific provision of the 1867
Act in question, but not any other jurisdiction the SC previously had.
 So, only the appeal lacked jurisdiction.

You might also like