27. What is the best argument supporting the constitutionality of the statute?

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that «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.

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 Court's appellate jurisdiction. Certain guidelines 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; and (iii) if Congress were to deny all Supreme Court review of an alleged violation of constitutional rights, or even deny a hearing before any federal judge on such a claim, this would violate due process of law.

A habeas corpus petition is a collateral civil challenge to a criminal conviction, codified in 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which states: «Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.»

A is correct. The statute, in this case, creates an exception to the Court's appellate jurisdiction, limiting its ability to review final judgments in criminal matters by state supreme courts. Such a limit on the Court's appellate review falls within Congress's power to remove specific avenues of relief without eliminating all areas. Therefore, this is the strongest argument for upholding the constitutionality of the statute.

B is incorrect. While it is true that criminal matters are traditionally governed by state law, this is not the strongest basis for the statute's constitutionality; state court dispositions are still properly reviewed by federal courts. For example, a decision of the highest court of a state in a criminal case is subject to appellate review in the U.S. Supreme Court if it includes a claim arising under federal law, or if the case otherwise triggers federal judicial review.

C is incorrect. This is not the strongest basis for upholding the statute, nor is it an accurate statement of the law. A habeas corpus petition is a civil challenge to the lawfulness of a defendant's incarceration. Although a habeas petition may provide an opportunity for relief for a criminal defendant, it is a collateral avenue, not a means of direct federal appellate review.

D is incorrect. While it is true that the review of state court judgments is not within the original jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court may nevertheless review such judgments by exercising its appellate jurisdiction, which is what the statute here seeks to limit.