Ex Parte McCardle
7 Wall. 506 (1869)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Although the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is derived from the Constitution, it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. Congress may, therefore, validly repeal a statute that grants a specific type of appellate jurisdiction, even for a case already pending before the Court.
Facts:
- William McCardle was a newspaper editor in Mississippi during the post-Civil War Reconstruction era.
- McCardle published a series of articles that were highly critical of the Reconstruction policies and the military officials enforcing them.
- In November 1867, U.S. military authorities arrested McCardle.
- McCardle was charged with inciting insurrection, disorder, and libel, and was held for trial before a military commission.
Procedural Posture:
- William McCardle, the petitioner, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, alleging his detention by military authorities was unconstitutional.
- The Circuit Court denied the petition.
- McCardle appealed the denial to the U.S. Supreme Court, basing the appeal on a federal statute passed in 1867 that explicitly granted the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over such habeas corpus cases.
- The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the merits of McCardle's appeal.
- Before the Supreme Court could issue a decision, Congress passed an act in March 1868 that repealed the specific provision of the 1867 act upon which McCardle's appeal was based.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the 1868 act, which repealed the portion of the 1867 act granting the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases from Circuit Courts, validly remove the Court's authority to decide McCardle's pending appeal?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Chase
Yes. The 1868 act validly removes the Court's authority to decide McCardle's appeal. While the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is granted by the Constitution, Article III, Section 2 explicitly states this jurisdiction is subject to 'such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.' The 1867 statute was a regulation conferring jurisdiction, and the 1868 statute was an express repeal of that regulation, constituting a valid constitutional 'exception.' The Court is not at liberty to inquire into the motives of Congress, only into its power under the Constitution. When jurisdiction ceases to exist, the Court's only remaining function is to announce that fact and dismiss the case, as the power to declare law is inseparable from jurisdiction.
Analysis:
Ex parte McCardle is a landmark decision confirming the broad power of Congress to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under the Exceptions Clause of Article III. The ruling established that this power is a significant check on the judiciary, as Congress can effectively prevent the Court from ruling on the constitutionality of certain laws by simply revoking its jurisdiction over those types of cases. This case highlights the potential for political conflict between the legislative and judicial branches and raises enduring questions about whether there are any inherent limits on Congress's ability to strip the Court's jurisdiction, particularly if it would undermine the Court's essential role in the constitutional system.
Unlock the full brief for Ex Parte McCardle