Curtailment of Jurisdiction

Article III of the United States Constitution is the source of Congress’ power to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts.  Jurisdiction means a court’s power to hear and decide particular types of cases.  For example, state courts have jurisdiction over laws passed in their states, therefore court cases involving state law can be heard by a state court.  Article III, Section 1 states:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.  [i]

This section has been widely interpreted to mean that Congress has broad power to both set up lower federal courts and to determine what types of cases those courts will be able to hear and decide on.  As for the Supreme Court, Section 2 states in part:

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.  [ii]

This part of Section 2 gives the Supreme Court the authority to hear certain cases firsthand, without those cases having to go through the lower courts.  It also sets up the Supreme Court’s role as an appellate court with the authority to hear cases that have proceeded through the lower courts.  The phrase “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make,” has been widely understood as giving Congress the power to prevent the Supreme Court from hearing certain types of cases on appeal.

Congress’ authority to determine the jurisdiction of federal courts and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is potentially a threat to judicial independence.  Misuse of this power could lead to a lack of uniformity in the law because the Supreme Court would no longer have the final say on the issues withdrawn from its jurisdiction.  “Stripping the court of jurisdiction to hear certain issues would vest ultimate judicial authority in the lower federal and state courts, producing contradictory and conflicting legal doctrines.”  [iii]

Congress can also use its power over federal and Supreme Court jurisdiction to demonstrate its dissatisfaction with certain rulings.  As Professor Gerald Gunther of Stanford Law School points out, this is inappropriate and ineffective.  “Appellate jurisdiction-stripping laws are not truly effective means for implementing congressional dissatisfaction with Court rulings because disfavored rulings would remain on the books as influential precedents.”  [iv]

When Congress uses its power to determine jurisdiction it is often attempting to change constitutional law without complying with the procedural rules for amending the constitution.  Since constitutional amendments are difficult to get passed, Congress will often attempt to alter court decisions by changing jurisdiction. Congressional attempts to circumvent the established means of registering dissatisfaction with the courts do not effectively remove the offensive ruling.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 stripped federal courts of jurisdiction over Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) decisions on whether and to whom to grant asylum.  Effectively, the INS can decide not to grant an individual asylum, and that decision can no longer be reviewed by a federal court.  [v]  Other examples of jurisdiction stripping include the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1996 (PLRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).  Briefly, the PLRA restricts the “remedies that a judge can provide in civil litigation relating to prison conditions.”  [vi]  The AEDPA limits the number of habeas petitions filed by state prisoners in federal courts, in addition to other limits on federal court authority related to such petitions.  [vii]  Habeas petitions are requests a prisoner makes asking a court to determine whether his constitutional rights are being deprived as a result of his incarceration. 

[i] U.S. Constitution, article III, §1.

[ii] U.S. Constitution article III, §2.

[iii] Have U.S. Courts Overreached?, Louis Fisher, Los Angeles Times, Sunday, February 2, 1997.

[iv] Congressional Power To Curtail Federal Court Jurisdiction: An Opinionated Guide To the Ongoing Debate, Gerald Gunther, 36 Stanford Law Review 895, 910. 

[v] Taking Liberties: The New Assault On Freedom, Wendy Kaminer, American Prospect, Friday, January 1, 1999.

[vi] Judicial Independence: Rebuffing Congressional Attacks On the Third Branch, Stephan O. Kline, 87 Kentucky Law Journal 679,  730, Spring 1999.

[vii] Introduction: Congressional Control Of Jurisdiction and the Future of the Federal Courts—Opposition, Agreement, and Hierarchy, Vicki C. Jackson, 86 Georgetown Law Journal 2445, 2446, July 1998.