22. Which of the following is the most persuasive argument for the constitutionality of the new statute restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction?

In response to this ruling, Congress passed a new statute that explicitly denies the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction over all future cases challenging the constitutionality of action taken under the authority of the federal voting rights statute.

Under the authority of a federal voting rights statute, some states drew congressional districts in a manner calculated to increase the likelihood that members of historically disadvantaged minority racial groups would be elected. The U.S. Supreme Court declared these districts to be unconstitutional, as improper racial gerrymanders.

Article III of the Constitution explicitly states that the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to such exceptions and regulations as Congress shall make
The constitutional principle of separation of powers authorizes Congress to pass statutes calculated to reduce the effects of Supreme Court decisions that interfere with the exercise of powers that have been delegated to the legislative branch
The establishment and apportionment of congressional districts directly affect interstate commerce, and the Constitution authorizes Congress to use its plenary authority over such commerce for any purpose it believes will promote the general welfare
The Fifteenth Amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the amendment’s voting rights provisions by appropriate legislation, and Congress could reasonably determine that this restriction on the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is an appropriate means to that end

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Under Article III, the U.S. Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction in cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and cases in which a state is a party. Article III itself suggests that Congress may place certain limits on both the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction and on the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts. Section 2 of Article III states that in all cases not falling within the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (but falling within the federal judicial power), «in all other Cases before mentioned, [i.e., arising under the Constitution, Act of Congress, or treaty], 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.»

Under Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1868), Congress has full power to regulate and limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. However, Congress does not have unlimited power to tamper with the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Possible limitations on such congressional power have been suggested: (i) Congress may eliminate specific avenues for Supreme Court review as long as it does not eliminate all areas; (ii) Congress may eliminate Supreme Court review of certain cases within federal judicial power, but it must permit jurisdiction to remain in some lower federal court; (iii) if Congress were to deny all Supreme Court review of an alleged violation of constitutional rights, or even go further and deny a hearing before any federal judge on such a claim, this would violate due process of law.

There is a practical limitation upon Congress's ability to cut back on the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. If Congress is motivated by hostility to a particular Court decision, then it might be defeating its own purposes by restricting the Court's subsequent ability to hear similar cases—the adverse precedent will be left on the books. Furthermore, without Supreme Court jurisdiction in an area, the individual courts of appeals will be left to go their own ways, destroying national uniformity of the law in that area.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 empowers Congress to «regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.» Commerce is defined as «every species of commercial intercourse. .. which concerns more states than one» and including virtually every form of activity involving or affecting two or more states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The Fifteenth Amendment is a limitation on both the states and the federal government. It prohibits them from denying any citizen the right to vote on account of race or color. As indicated above, the Fifteenth Amendment contains an enabling clause that allows Congress to adopt legislation protecting the right to vote from discrimination.

A is correct. This is the most persuasive argument for upholding the new statute because Article III and Ex parte McCardle explicitly give Congress the authority to regulate and limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction. Although there are limits on this authority, the call of the question is asking for the most persuasive argument for the constitutionality of the new statute restricting the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

B is incorrect. This would not be the most persuasive argument because the separation of powers doctrine stands for the notion that one branch should not interfere with the powers of another branch. It ensures that Congress does not, for example, interfere with the final judgments of courts. As stated above, Article III is the best argument because it enables Congress to limit the Court's appellate jurisdiction.

C is incorrect. The Commerce Clause does not apply in this scenario, as it authorizes Congress to regulate commerce between states or commercial activities in one state that, in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce. The drawing of congressional districts by states does not relate to commerce.

D is incorrect. The Fifteenth Amendment does not apply, as it prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

22. Which of the following is the most persuasive argument for the constitutionality of the new statute restricting the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired