8. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that

A federal statute provides that the United States Supreme Court has authority to review any case filed in a United States Court of Appeals, even though that case has not yet been decided by the court of appeals. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency in the executive branch of the federal government, issued an important environmental rule. Although the rule had not yet been enforced against them, companies that would be adversely affected by the rule filed a petition for review of the rule in a court of appeals, seeking a declaration that the rule was invalid solely because it was beyond the statutory authority of the EPA. The companies made no constitutional claim. A statute specifically provides for direct review of EPA rules by a court of appeals without any initial action in a district court. The companies filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court requesting immediate review of this case by the Supreme Court before the court of appeals has actually decided the case. The EPA acknowledges that the case is important enough to warrant Supreme Court review and that it should be decided promptly, but it asks the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition on jurisdictional grounds.

The case is not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as defined by Article III, and it is not a proper subject of that court's appellate jurisdiction because it has not yet been decided by any lower court
The case is appellate in nature, but it is beyond the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, because Article III states that its jurisdiction extends only to cases arising under the Constitution
Article III precludes federal courts from reviewing the validity of any federal agency rule in any proceeding other than an action to enforce the rule
Article III provides that all federal cases, except those within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, must be initiated by an action in a federal district court

« 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.» Congress has the general power to decide what types of cases the Supreme Court may hear, as long as it doesn't expand the Court's jurisdiction beyond the federal judicial power as established by Article III, Section 2.

A is correct. This is the strongest argument in support of the EPA's jurisdictional challenge to the action because Article III defines the scope of the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction, and although Congress may regulate the appellate jurisdictional scope of the Court, it may not expand the Court's original jurisdiction as outlined by Article III. This argument properly recognizes that it is not an appellate jurisdictional issue because no lower court has decided it, so it's not coming up on appeal. Without a provision allowing for the expansion of the Court's original jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

B is incorrect. This would not be an effective argument for the EPA because if the case were appellate in nature, the fact that it raises a federal question would bring it within the scope of the Court's appellate review powers.

C is incorrect. This is an incorrect statement of the law. Federal courts can, in fact, review the validity of a rule issued by a federal agency through a declaratory judgment as long as other requirements for justiciability are met. As such, this would not be the strongest argument for the EPA in dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds.

D is incorrect. This is also an incorrect statement of the law. Article III has no such requirement that all federal cases not under the Court's original jurisdiction be initiated in a federal district court. In fact, Congress need not have created district courts at all.

Comments (0)

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

8. The best constitutional argument in support of the EPA's request is that

Comments (0)

Trial period expired