During
the Civil War Reconstruction, McCardle, a newspaper publisher in
Mississippi and not a member of the military, published some
"incendiary" articles. He was jailed by a military commander
under a law passed by Congress against libel and impeding Reconstruction.
McCardle invoked habeas corpus in
the Mississippi Circuit Court on the grounds that the Reconcstruction Acts
were unconstitutional. The judge sent him back into custody, finding the
military actions legal under Congress's law.
He
appealed to the US Supreme Court under a congressional act of 1867 that
allowed federal judges to issue writs of habeas corpus and hear appeals from circuit courts.
After
the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress
repealed the statute.
Two
issues were raised by this case: did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction
to hear the case, and if so, did McCardle's imprisonment violate his
rights under the 5th Amendment?
In
Marbury v. Madison, it was
determined that the judiciary had the right to say what the law is.But this case says that maybe
it's only in cases where the Congress says the judiciary has the right to
say what the law is.
The
principle that the affirmation of appellate jurisdiction implies the
negation of all such jurisdiction not affirmed having been thus
established, it was an almost necessary consequence that acts of
Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction should comes to be
spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not was acts making
exceptions to the constitutional grant of is.
Basically,
the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is protected by the
Constitution, but appellate jurisdiction is solely an act of
Congress, and Congress can restrict that jurisdiction.
US
Supreme Court validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's
jurisdiction.
The
basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But
the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction does not affect the
jurisdiction which was previously exercised.
Because
the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second
question was not answered. Because Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear
the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in
Federal Court.
In
this case, it was determined that to some extent, Congress has the
power to not give jurisdiction to the Court for certain cases.
However,
it could be interpreted that this decision only means that since the 1867
law had been repealed, the Court didn't want to raise the question of
whether they had jurisdiction or not.They just wanted to get rid of the case.Chase's statement reserves the
right of the judiciary to hear cases they had previously taken.
McCardle
could have brought the case again, basing his arguments on older laws,
not based on the 1867 law.However, the military let him go, so the case went away.
If
you recognize the power of mere majorities of Congress to deprive the
Supreme Court's jurisdiction in any case, you have severely broken down
the concept of separation of powers.
This
is known as the essential functions
hypothesis.
Btw,
An ex parte decision is one decided
by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the controversy to be
present. In US and UK legal doctrine, it means a legal proceeding brought
by one person in the absence of and without representation or notification
of other parties. It is also used more loosely to refer to improper
unilateral contacts with a court, arbitrator or represented party without
notice to the other party or counsel for that party.
