American Constitutional Law Briefs
b b b
1.bMarburybv.bMadison,b(1803);bpg.b2,bbriefedb9/8/95
2.bFacts:bMarburybwasbonebofbthebfamousbÒmidnightbjudgesÓbwhosebcommissionbhadbbeenbsign
edbbybthebSecretarybofbStateb(Marshall),bbutbhadbnotbbeenbdeliveredbbeforebthebmorningbthatbJeffe
rsonbtookboffice.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bbMarburybwentbdirectlybtobthebSupremebCourtbtobcompelbJefferson'sbSecre
tarybofbStateb(Madison)btobdeliverbtheirbcommissions.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbthebpowerbtobreviewbtheblegislativebactsbofbthebCongres
sbtobdeterminebtheirbconstitutionality.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.bMajoritybReasoning:bMarshallbstatedbthatbMarburybhadbabrightbtobhisbcommissionboncebitbwasb
signed.bFurther,bSectionb13bofbthebJudiciarybActbofb1789bgavebthebsupremebcourtbthebrightbtobissu
ebabwritbofbmandamusbagainstbpersonsbholdingboffice.bThus,bitbwouldbappearbthatbMarburybhasbab
remedy.bHowever,bArticlebIIIbSectionb2bofbthebConstitutionbstatesbthatbthebsupremebcourtbshallbha
veboriginalbjurisdictionbinbcasesbÒaffectingbAmbassadors,botherbpublicbMinistersbandbConsuls,ba
ndbthosebinbwhichbabStatebshallbbebabparty,ÓbandbÒinballbotherbcases,...shallbhavebappellatebjurisdi
ction.ÓbSincebabwritbofbmandamusbisbanboriginalbaction,bSectionb13bofbthebJudiciarybActbmustbbeb
contrarybtobthebconstitution,bbecausebitballowsbthebSupremebCourtbtobhearbcasesbofboriginalbjurisd
ictionbforbpersonsbbesidesbministers,bconsulsbandbambassadors,betc.bIfbthebconstitutionbisbthebsupr
emebwillbofbthebpeoplebtoblimitbgovernment,bthenbtheblegislaturebcanbnotbalterbitbatbwill.bThus,btheb
legislaturebcanbnotbbeballowedbtobpassblawsbrepugnantbtobthebconstitution.bSincebitbisbthebSupreme
bCourt'sbrolebtobinterpret blawsbandbresolvebconflictsbbetweenbcompetingblaws,bandbthebConstituti
onbisbthebsupremeblawbofbthebland,bthenbthebSupremebCourtbhasbthebpowerbtobinterpretbthebConstit
utionbandbdecidebifbablawbpassedbconflictsbwithbit.
1.bMartinbv.bHunter'sbLessee,b(1816);bpg.b29,bbriefed,b9/8/95
2.bFacts:bFairfax,babBritishbloyalist,bownedblandbinbVirginia.bAbVirginiabstateblawbprovidedbforbth
ebseizurebofbFairfax'sblandsbpriorbtob1783.bVirginiabgrantedbtheblandbtobHunter.bMartinbwasbthebin
heritorbofbtheblandbfrombFairfax.bMartinbclaimedbthatbthebPeacebTreatybofb1783bandbthebJaybTreat
ybofb1794bprotectedbtheblandbfrombseizure.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebVirginiabcourt,binbtheboriginalbcase,bfoundbforbHunterbThebSupremeb
Courtbreversed,borderingbthebVirginiabcourtbtobenterbjudgmentbforbMartinbunderbthebauthoritybgra
ntedbbybSectionb25bofbthebJudiciarybActbwhichbgavebthebSupremebCourtbthebpowerbtobreviewbfina
lbdecisionsbofbthebhighestbstatebcourtsbrejectingbclaimsbbasedbonbfederalblaw.bThebVirginiabstatebc
ourtbrefusedbtobcomplybwithbtheborder,bclaimingbthatbSectionb25bwasbunconstitutional,bandbthebSu
premebCourtbhadbnobconstitutionalbrightbtobreviewbthebfinalbdecisionsbofbthebstatebcourts.bThebcas
ebisbagainbbeingbreviewedbbybthebSupremebCourt.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbSectionb25bofbthebJudiciarybActbofb1789bisbconstitutionallybvalid,bgivingbthebS
upremebCourtbthebrightbtobreviewbthebfinalbdecisionsbofbstatebcourtsbrejectingbclaimsbbasedbonbfed
eralblaw.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.b¸bArgument:bWithoutbSupremebCourtbreviewbofbstatebcourtbdecisions,btherebwillbbebnobotherbm
odebbybwhichbCongressbcanbextendbthebjudicialbpowerbofbthebUnitedbStatesbtobcasesbofbfederalbco
gnizancebwhichbarisebinbthebstatebcourts,bresultingbinbnon-uniformitybofbdecisionsbamongbstates.
,7.bÆbArgument:bThebconstitutionbdoesbnotbprovidebexplicitlybforbSupremebCourtbreviewbofbstateb
courtbdecisions.bSincebitbmustbhavebbeenbforeseenbbybthebdraftersbthatbconflictsbwouldbarise,btheb
omissionbisbevidencebthatbthebframersbfeltbthatbsuchbabpowerfulbtribunalbwouldbproducebevilsbgre
aterbthanbthosebofbtheboccasionalbcollisionsbwhichbitbwouldbbebdesignedbtobremedy.bThus,bonceba
nbactionbisbbroughtbinbstatebcourt,bthebfederalbcourt'sbsolebremedybisbtobshiftbitbtobablowerbfederalbc
ourtbbeforebitbgetsbtobthebfinalbcourtbofbthebstate,borbsimplybtobadvisebthebhighbstatebcourtbthatbtheyb
havebimproperlybinterpretedbthebconstitution.bThebstatesbarebduallybsovereignbwithbthebfederalbgo
vernment,bandbnotbsubjectbtobtheblawsbofbCongressbwhichblimitbtheirbsovereignty.
8.bMajoritybReasoning:bInbArticlebIII,bthebSupremebCourtbisbgivenbthebjudicialbpowerbwhichbÒsh
allbextendbtoballbcases.ÓbThus,bitbisbthebnaturebofbthebcasebandbnotbthebcourtbofboriginbthatbdetermi
nesbwhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbappellatebjurisdiction.bThebSupremebCourtbappellatebpowerb
isbnotblimitedbonlybtobcasesbthatbcomebupbthroughbtheblowerbfederalbcourts.bAlso,bthebConstitutio
nbwasbdesignedbtoboperatebuponbthebstatesbthemselves,bandbnotbjustbthebpersonsbwithinbthebstates.b
Thus,bthebstatesbthemselvesbarebnotbequalbsovereignsbwithbthebfederalbgovernment,bbutbratherbsub
jectbtobitsblaw-
bmakingbcapability. bFurthermore, bevenbifbthebstatebcourtsbdobnotbabusebthebpowerbofbthebconstitut
ion,btheybareblikelybtobrulebdifferentlybonbitbfrombstatebtobstate.bThus,bthebneedbforbuniformitybinbd
ecisionsbrequiresbanbultimatebsinglebcourtbofblastbresortbwhichbexercisesbreviewboverballbstates.bL
astly,btherebisbsubstantialbhistoricalbevidencebthatbthebframersbintendedbSupremebCourtbreviewbof
bstatebcourtbdecisions,basbwellbasbseveralbpreviousbcasesbwhichbdobso.
1.bExbPartebMcCardle,b(1869);bpg.b39,bbriefedb9/8/95
2.bFacts:bMcCardlebwasbabnewspaperbpublisherbinbthebpost-
civilbwarbsouth.bHebwasbimprisonedbforbsedition.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bMcCardlebbroughtbabhabeusbcorpusbactbunderbanbActbofbCongressbofb1867
bwhichbauthorizedbthebfederal bcourtsbtobgrantbhabeusbcorpusbtobanyonebrestrainedbÒinbviolationbo
fbthebConstitutionÓ,bandbgavebthebSupremebCourtbappellatebjurisdictionboverbsuchbactions.bHow
ever,bbeforebitbwasbruledbuponbonbthebmeritsbbybthebSupremebCourt,bCongressbpassedbanotherbAc
t,bexpresslybrevokingbthebappellatebjurisdictionbforbthesebtypesbofbactionsbthatbitbhadbpreviouslybg
rantedbinb1867.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbcanbtakebawaybthebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourtbasbtobhabeusbco
rpusbacts,bwhichbjurisdictionbwasbgrantedbinbtheb1867bAct.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.b¸bArgument:bThebappellatebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourtbisbderivedbfrombArticlebIII,bSecti
onb2bofbthebconstitution,bnotbfrombactsbofbCongress.
7.bMajoritybReasoning:bItbisbtruebthatbthebappellatebjurisdictionbisbgrantedbbybthebconstitution,bbut
binbthebsamebarticle,bitbisbmadebexpresslybsubjectbtobÒsuchbexceptionsbandbunderbsuchbregulations
basbCongress bshall bmake.ÓbThus,bCongress bhasbthebpowerbtobexpandbandblimitbthebscopebofbtheba
ppellatebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourt.bQuitebsimply,bCongressbwasbactingbclearlybwithinbits
bpowerbinbbothbgrantingbandbthenbrepealingbthebspecificbjurisdictionbtobreviewbhabeus bcorpusbcas
esbfrombthebCircuitbCourtsbpursuantbtobthebActbofb1867.bThebActbofb1868bdoesbnotbaffectbthebappe
llatebjurisdictionbwithbregardbtobanybotherbcases.
1.bUnitedbStatesbv.bKlein,b(1872);bpg.b42,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bKleinbwasbpardonedbbybthebpresidentbforbaidingbinbthebcivilbwarbrebellion.bAbstatutebexis
tedbthatbwouldballowbpersonsbwhobdidbnotbaidbinbthebrebellionbtobrecoverblandbseizedbfrombthembi
nbthebReconstruction.bPreviousbcaseblawbhadbheldbthatbabpresidentialbpardonbwasbconclusivebpro
ofbthatbabpersonbhadbnotbcommittedbthebcrime.
,3.bProceduralbPosture:bAbnewbstatutebwasbenactedbbybCongressbwhilebthebKleinbcasebwasbpendin
gbappeal,breversingbthebpreviousbtraditionbofbabpardonbbeingbproofbofbnon-
participation,bandbinbfactbmakingbitbconclusivebproofbofbactualbparticipation.bInbaddition,bthebstat
utebpurportedbtobremovebfederalbcourtbjurisdictionbforballbsuchbclaimsbarisingbfrombpardons.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbhasbthebconstitutionalbpowerbtobenactbabstatutebwhichblimitsbthebjuris
dictionbofbthebfederalbcourts,bparticularlybthebSupremebCourt,bwhen,bbyblimitingbsaidbjurisdiction
bwouldbdictatebtheboutcomebofbabparticularbcase.
5.bHolding:bNo.
6.b¸bArgument:bCongressbhasbthebpowerbunderbArticlebIIIbtoblimitbthebappellatebjurisdictionbofbthe
bfederalbcourtsbbecausebofbthebspecificblanguagebÒwithbsuchbexceptions...asbthebCongressbshallb
make.Ó
7.bÆbArgument:bCongressbdoesbnotbhavebthebpowerbtobdictatebtheboutcomebofbanybparticularbcase
bbecausebsuchbwouldbbebcontrarybtobthebseparationbofbpowersbstructurebofbthebConstitution.
8.bMajoritybReasoning:bThebstatutebremovingbjurisdictionbinbthisbinstancebwasbunconstitutionalbb
ecausebitbwasbonlybÒabmeansbtobanbend,Óbtobaffectbtheboutcomebofbthisbparticularbcase.bDismissin
gbthebappealbwouldballowbCongressbtobprescribebthebjudgmentsbofbthebSupremebCourtbdirectly.bT
hebstatutebprescribedbhowbthebcourtbshouldbdecidebanbissuebofbfact,bandbitbdeniedbeffectbtobabPresi
dentialbPardon,bthusbviolatingbthebseparationbofbpowers.
1.bPlautbv.bSpendthriftbFarm,bInc.b(1995);bpg.b3bsupp.,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bAbSecuritiesbActbviolationbwasbcommitted.bAfterbSupremebCourtbdismissalbofbthebfirstba
ctionbforbbeingbbroughtboutsidebofbthebstatutebofblimitations,bCongressbpassedbabnewbsectionb27Ab
tobthebSecuritiesbExchangebAct,bextendingbthebstatutebofblimitationsbinbthesebcases,basbwellbasbpro
vidingbforbthebÒreinstatementÓbofbcausesbofbactionbthatbhadbbeenbdismissedbonbstatutebofblimitati
onsbgroundsbduringbthebtimebofbpendencybofbthebfirstbactionbinbthisbcase,bthusbre-
openingbthebcase.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bInbthebfirstbaction,bthebSupremebCourtbdismissedbthebcasebforbbeingbbroug
htboutsidebofbthebstatutebofblimitationsb(whichbitbhasbprescribedbinbthebRules).bCongress'benactme
ntbofbnewbsectionb27Abreinstatedbthebaction.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbcanbreinstatebabcasebthatbhasbbeenbpreviouslybdismissedbonbstatutebof
blimitationsbgrounds.
5.bHolding:bNo.
6.b¸bArgument:bCongressbhasbthebpowerbunderbArticlebIIIbtobmodifybthebappellatebjurisdictionbofbt
hebSupremebCourt,bwhichbincludesbstatutorilybreinstatingbabclassbofbcases.
7.bÆbArgument:bCongress'bpowerbdoesbnotbincludebreinstatementbofbpreviouslybdecidedbcasesbun
derbnewblaws.
, 8.bMajoritybReasoning:bScaliabstatedbthatbArticlebIIIbnotbonlybgivesbthebfederalbjudiciarybthebpow
erbtobrulebonbcases,bbutbtobdecidebthem,bsubjectbonlybtobreviewbbybsuperiorbcourtsbinbthebArticlebII
Ibhierarchy.bÒWhenbretroactiveblegislationbrequiresbitsbownbapplicationbinbabcasebalreadybfinallyb
adjudicated,bitbdoesbnobmorebandbnoblessbthanb`reversebabdeterminationboncebmade,binbabparticula
rbcase.'ÓbSuchbpowerbisbclearlybcontrarybtobwhatbthebframersbcontemplatedbinbthebseparationbofbp
owers.bItbdidbnotbmatterbthatbthebstatutebwasbwithbreferencebtobabgeneralbclassbofbcases,bandbnotbos
tensiblybtobabparticularbcase,bifbitbgavebthebCongressbthebpowerbtobreinstatebabcase,bitbnecessarilybi
nterferedbwithbtheboutcomebofbabparticularbcase.
1.bMichiganbv.bLongb(1983);bpg.b56,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bLongbwasbarrested,bandballegedbthatbhisbsearchbandbseizurebrightsbhadbbeenbviolated.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebMichiganbStatebSupremebCourtbruledbthatbthebpolicebsearchbdidbviola
tedbthebFourthbAmendmentbandbthebMichiganbConstitution'sbownbsearchbandbseizureblaws.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbjurisdictionbtobreviewbstatebcourtbjudgmentsbwhichbco
ncernbfederalbissues,bandbwhichbarebnotbclearlybbasedbonbanbadequatebandbindependentbstateblawb
grounds.
5.bHolding:bYes.bIfbthebstatebcourtbdecisionbdoesbnot]bindicatebclearlybandbexpresslybbybmeansbofb
abÒplainbstatementÓbthatbitbisbalternativelybbasedbonbbonabfidebseparate,badequate,bandbindepend
entbgroundsbthebSupremebCourtbhasbappellatebjurisdictionbtobreviewbthebstatebcourtbruling.
6.bMajoritybReasoning:bO'ConnorbstatedbthatbthebCourtbmustbassumebthatbtherebarebnobadequatebg
roundsbwhenbitbisbnotbclearbfrombthebopinionbthatbtherebwere,bandbthebopinionbappearsbtobrestbpri
marilybonbfederalblaw.bItbwasbnecessaryboutbofbrespectbforbthebindependencebofbstatebcourtsbthatbt
hebpresumptionbofbadequatebstatebgroundsbgobagainstbthebstatesbsobasbtobpromotebclarity,bthusbavo
idingbexcessivebremandsbandbadvisorybopinions.bThisbpromotesbuniformitybinbthebstatesbinterpret
ationbofbfederalblaw.
7.bDissentbReasoning:bStevensbstatedbthatbitbwouldbbebbetterbtobgivebthebpresumptionbforbadequat
ebstatebgroundsbtobthebstate,bbecausebofbhistoricalbconcernsbofbjudicialbrestraint.bThebSupremebCo
urtbshouldbnotbbebinvolvedbunlessbtherebisbabreasonbtobvindicatebthebfederalbrightsbofbabparty.bAbpr
esumptionbagainstbindependentbstatebgroundsbwouldbhavebthebCourtbexpoundingbtheirbunderstan
dingbofbConstitutionalblawbtobtheblegalbcommunitybinsteadbofbprimarilybsittingbtobresolvebdispute
s.
1.bMcCullochbv.bMaryland,b(1819);bpg.b67,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bInb1816,bCongressbcharteredbthebSecondbBankbofbthebUnitedbStates,bwhichbbecamebacti
vebinbMaryland.bInb1818,bthebMarylandblegislaturebpassedbanbActbtobtaxbanybbankbnotbcharteredbb
ybthebLegislaturebofbMaryland,bthusbtaxingbthebU.S.bBank.bTheblawbprovidedbforbprivatebremedie
sbagainstbthebbankboperators,bofbwhich,bonebwasbMcCulloch.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebtrialbcourtbenteredbjudgmentbonbthebbasisbofbanbagreedbstatementbofbfa
ctsb(thatbthebU.S.bBankbwasbnotbcharteredbbybthebMarylandblegislature),bandbthebMarylandbCourtb
ofbAppealbaffirmed.bAnbappealbwasbtakenbbybwritbofberrorbtobthebSupremebCourt.
b b b
1.bMarburybv.bMadison,b(1803);bpg.b2,bbriefedb9/8/95
2.bFacts:bMarburybwasbonebofbthebfamousbÒmidnightbjudgesÓbwhosebcommissionbhadbbeenbsign
edbbybthebSecretarybofbStateb(Marshall),bbutbhadbnotbbeenbdeliveredbbeforebthebmorningbthatbJeffe
rsonbtookboffice.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bbMarburybwentbdirectlybtobthebSupremebCourtbtobcompelbJefferson'sbSecre
tarybofbStateb(Madison)btobdeliverbtheirbcommissions.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbthebpowerbtobreviewbtheblegislativebactsbofbthebCongres
sbtobdeterminebtheirbconstitutionality.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.bMajoritybReasoning:bMarshallbstatedbthatbMarburybhadbabrightbtobhisbcommissionboncebitbwasb
signed.bFurther,bSectionb13bofbthebJudiciarybActbofb1789bgavebthebsupremebcourtbthebrightbtobissu
ebabwritbofbmandamusbagainstbpersonsbholdingboffice.bThus,bitbwouldbappearbthatbMarburybhasbab
remedy.bHowever,bArticlebIIIbSectionb2bofbthebConstitutionbstatesbthatbthebsupremebcourtbshallbha
veboriginalbjurisdictionbinbcasesbÒaffectingbAmbassadors,botherbpublicbMinistersbandbConsuls,ba
ndbthosebinbwhichbabStatebshallbbebabparty,ÓbandbÒinballbotherbcases,...shallbhavebappellatebjurisdi
ction.ÓbSincebabwritbofbmandamusbisbanboriginalbaction,bSectionb13bofbthebJudiciarybActbmustbbeb
contrarybtobthebconstitution,bbecausebitballowsbthebSupremebCourtbtobhearbcasesbofboriginalbjurisd
ictionbforbpersonsbbesidesbministers,bconsulsbandbambassadors,betc.bIfbthebconstitutionbisbthebsupr
emebwillbofbthebpeoplebtoblimitbgovernment,bthenbtheblegislaturebcanbnotbalterbitbatbwill.bThus,btheb
legislaturebcanbnotbbeballowedbtobpassblawsbrepugnantbtobthebconstitution.bSincebitbisbthebSupreme
bCourt'sbrolebtobinterpret blawsbandbresolvebconflictsbbetweenbcompetingblaws,bandbthebConstituti
onbisbthebsupremeblawbofbthebland,bthenbthebSupremebCourtbhasbthebpowerbtobinterpretbthebConstit
utionbandbdecidebifbablawbpassedbconflictsbwithbit.
1.bMartinbv.bHunter'sbLessee,b(1816);bpg.b29,bbriefed,b9/8/95
2.bFacts:bFairfax,babBritishbloyalist,bownedblandbinbVirginia.bAbVirginiabstateblawbprovidedbforbth
ebseizurebofbFairfax'sblandsbpriorbtob1783.bVirginiabgrantedbtheblandbtobHunter.bMartinbwasbthebin
heritorbofbtheblandbfrombFairfax.bMartinbclaimedbthatbthebPeacebTreatybofb1783bandbthebJaybTreat
ybofb1794bprotectedbtheblandbfrombseizure.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebVirginiabcourt,binbtheboriginalbcase,bfoundbforbHunterbThebSupremeb
Courtbreversed,borderingbthebVirginiabcourtbtobenterbjudgmentbforbMartinbunderbthebauthoritybgra
ntedbbybSectionb25bofbthebJudiciarybActbwhichbgavebthebSupremebCourtbthebpowerbtobreviewbfina
lbdecisionsbofbthebhighestbstatebcourtsbrejectingbclaimsbbasedbonbfederalblaw.bThebVirginiabstatebc
ourtbrefusedbtobcomplybwithbtheborder,bclaimingbthatbSectionb25bwasbunconstitutional,bandbthebSu
premebCourtbhadbnobconstitutionalbrightbtobreviewbthebfinalbdecisionsbofbthebstatebcourts.bThebcas
ebisbagainbbeingbreviewedbbybthebSupremebCourt.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbSectionb25bofbthebJudiciarybActbofb1789bisbconstitutionallybvalid,bgivingbthebS
upremebCourtbthebrightbtobreviewbthebfinalbdecisionsbofbstatebcourtsbrejectingbclaimsbbasedbonbfed
eralblaw.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.b¸bArgument:bWithoutbSupremebCourtbreviewbofbstatebcourtbdecisions,btherebwillbbebnobotherbm
odebbybwhichbCongressbcanbextendbthebjudicialbpowerbofbthebUnitedbStatesbtobcasesbofbfederalbco
gnizancebwhichbarisebinbthebstatebcourts,bresultingbinbnon-uniformitybofbdecisionsbamongbstates.
,7.bÆbArgument:bThebconstitutionbdoesbnotbprovidebexplicitlybforbSupremebCourtbreviewbofbstateb
courtbdecisions.bSincebitbmustbhavebbeenbforeseenbbybthebdraftersbthatbconflictsbwouldbarise,btheb
omissionbisbevidencebthatbthebframersbfeltbthatbsuchbabpowerfulbtribunalbwouldbproducebevilsbgre
aterbthanbthosebofbtheboccasionalbcollisionsbwhichbitbwouldbbebdesignedbtobremedy.bThus,bonceba
nbactionbisbbroughtbinbstatebcourt,bthebfederalbcourt'sbsolebremedybisbtobshiftbitbtobablowerbfederalbc
ourtbbeforebitbgetsbtobthebfinalbcourtbofbthebstate,borbsimplybtobadvisebthebhighbstatebcourtbthatbtheyb
havebimproperlybinterpretedbthebconstitution.bThebstatesbarebduallybsovereignbwithbthebfederalbgo
vernment,bandbnotbsubjectbtobtheblawsbofbCongressbwhichblimitbtheirbsovereignty.
8.bMajoritybReasoning:bInbArticlebIII,bthebSupremebCourtbisbgivenbthebjudicialbpowerbwhichbÒsh
allbextendbtoballbcases.ÓbThus,bitbisbthebnaturebofbthebcasebandbnotbthebcourtbofboriginbthatbdetermi
nesbwhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbappellatebjurisdiction.bThebSupremebCourtbappellatebpowerb
isbnotblimitedbonlybtobcasesbthatbcomebupbthroughbtheblowerbfederalbcourts.bAlso,bthebConstitutio
nbwasbdesignedbtoboperatebuponbthebstatesbthemselves,bandbnotbjustbthebpersonsbwithinbthebstates.b
Thus,bthebstatesbthemselvesbarebnotbequalbsovereignsbwithbthebfederalbgovernment,bbutbratherbsub
jectbtobitsblaw-
bmakingbcapability. bFurthermore, bevenbifbthebstatebcourtsbdobnotbabusebthebpowerbofbthebconstitut
ion,btheybareblikelybtobrulebdifferentlybonbitbfrombstatebtobstate.bThus,bthebneedbforbuniformitybinbd
ecisionsbrequiresbanbultimatebsinglebcourtbofblastbresortbwhichbexercisesbreviewboverballbstates.bL
astly,btherebisbsubstantialbhistoricalbevidencebthatbthebframersbintendedbSupremebCourtbreviewbof
bstatebcourtbdecisions,basbwellbasbseveralbpreviousbcasesbwhichbdobso.
1.bExbPartebMcCardle,b(1869);bpg.b39,bbriefedb9/8/95
2.bFacts:bMcCardlebwasbabnewspaperbpublisherbinbthebpost-
civilbwarbsouth.bHebwasbimprisonedbforbsedition.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bMcCardlebbroughtbabhabeusbcorpusbactbunderbanbActbofbCongressbofb1867
bwhichbauthorizedbthebfederal bcourtsbtobgrantbhabeusbcorpusbtobanyonebrestrainedbÒinbviolationbo
fbthebConstitutionÓ,bandbgavebthebSupremebCourtbappellatebjurisdictionboverbsuchbactions.bHow
ever,bbeforebitbwasbruledbuponbonbthebmeritsbbybthebSupremebCourt,bCongressbpassedbanotherbAc
t,bexpresslybrevokingbthebappellatebjurisdictionbforbthesebtypesbofbactionsbthatbitbhadbpreviouslybg
rantedbinb1867.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbcanbtakebawaybthebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourtbasbtobhabeusbco
rpusbacts,bwhichbjurisdictionbwasbgrantedbinbtheb1867bAct.
5.bHolding:bYes.
6.b¸bArgument:bThebappellatebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourtbisbderivedbfrombArticlebIII,bSecti
onb2bofbthebconstitution,bnotbfrombactsbofbCongress.
7.bMajoritybReasoning:bItbisbtruebthatbthebappellatebjurisdictionbisbgrantedbbybthebconstitution,bbut
binbthebsamebarticle,bitbisbmadebexpresslybsubjectbtobÒsuchbexceptionsbandbunderbsuchbregulations
basbCongress bshall bmake.ÓbThus,bCongress bhasbthebpowerbtobexpandbandblimitbthebscopebofbtheba
ppellatebjurisdictionbofbthebSupremebCourt.bQuitebsimply,bCongressbwasbactingbclearlybwithinbits
bpowerbinbbothbgrantingbandbthenbrepealingbthebspecificbjurisdictionbtobreviewbhabeus bcorpusbcas
esbfrombthebCircuitbCourtsbpursuantbtobthebActbofb1867.bThebActbofb1868bdoesbnotbaffectbthebappe
llatebjurisdictionbwithbregardbtobanybotherbcases.
1.bUnitedbStatesbv.bKlein,b(1872);bpg.b42,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bKleinbwasbpardonedbbybthebpresidentbforbaidingbinbthebcivilbwarbrebellion.bAbstatutebexis
tedbthatbwouldballowbpersonsbwhobdidbnotbaidbinbthebrebellionbtobrecoverblandbseizedbfrombthembi
nbthebReconstruction.bPreviousbcaseblawbhadbheldbthatbabpresidentialbpardonbwasbconclusivebpro
ofbthatbabpersonbhadbnotbcommittedbthebcrime.
,3.bProceduralbPosture:bAbnewbstatutebwasbenactedbbybCongressbwhilebthebKleinbcasebwasbpendin
gbappeal,breversingbthebpreviousbtraditionbofbabpardonbbeingbproofbofbnon-
participation,bandbinbfactbmakingbitbconclusivebproofbofbactualbparticipation.bInbaddition,bthebstat
utebpurportedbtobremovebfederalbcourtbjurisdictionbforballbsuchbclaimsbarisingbfrombpardons.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbhasbthebconstitutionalbpowerbtobenactbabstatutebwhichblimitsbthebjuris
dictionbofbthebfederalbcourts,bparticularlybthebSupremebCourt,bwhen,bbyblimitingbsaidbjurisdiction
bwouldbdictatebtheboutcomebofbabparticularbcase.
5.bHolding:bNo.
6.b¸bArgument:bCongressbhasbthebpowerbunderbArticlebIIIbtoblimitbthebappellatebjurisdictionbofbthe
bfederalbcourtsbbecausebofbthebspecificblanguagebÒwithbsuchbexceptions...asbthebCongressbshallb
make.Ó
7.bÆbArgument:bCongressbdoesbnotbhavebthebpowerbtobdictatebtheboutcomebofbanybparticularbcase
bbecausebsuchbwouldbbebcontrarybtobthebseparationbofbpowersbstructurebofbthebConstitution.
8.bMajoritybReasoning:bThebstatutebremovingbjurisdictionbinbthisbinstancebwasbunconstitutionalbb
ecausebitbwasbonlybÒabmeansbtobanbend,Óbtobaffectbtheboutcomebofbthisbparticularbcase.bDismissin
gbthebappealbwouldballowbCongressbtobprescribebthebjudgmentsbofbthebSupremebCourtbdirectly.bT
hebstatutebprescribedbhowbthebcourtbshouldbdecidebanbissuebofbfact,bandbitbdeniedbeffectbtobabPresi
dentialbPardon,bthusbviolatingbthebseparationbofbpowers.
1.bPlautbv.bSpendthriftbFarm,bInc.b(1995);bpg.b3bsupp.,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bAbSecuritiesbActbviolationbwasbcommitted.bAfterbSupremebCourtbdismissalbofbthebfirstba
ctionbforbbeingbbroughtboutsidebofbthebstatutebofblimitations,bCongressbpassedbabnewbsectionb27Ab
tobthebSecuritiesbExchangebAct,bextendingbthebstatutebofblimitationsbinbthesebcases,basbwellbasbpro
vidingbforbthebÒreinstatementÓbofbcausesbofbactionbthatbhadbbeenbdismissedbonbstatutebofblimitati
onsbgroundsbduringbthebtimebofbpendencybofbthebfirstbactionbinbthisbcase,bthusbre-
openingbthebcase.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bInbthebfirstbaction,bthebSupremebCourtbdismissedbthebcasebforbbeingbbroug
htboutsidebofbthebstatutebofblimitationsb(whichbitbhasbprescribedbinbthebRules).bCongress'benactme
ntbofbnewbsectionb27Abreinstatedbthebaction.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbCongressbcanbreinstatebabcasebthatbhasbbeenbpreviouslybdismissedbonbstatutebof
blimitationsbgrounds.
5.bHolding:bNo.
6.b¸bArgument:bCongressbhasbthebpowerbunderbArticlebIIIbtobmodifybthebappellatebjurisdictionbofbt
hebSupremebCourt,bwhichbincludesbstatutorilybreinstatingbabclassbofbcases.
7.bÆbArgument:bCongress'bpowerbdoesbnotbincludebreinstatementbofbpreviouslybdecidedbcasesbun
derbnewblaws.
, 8.bMajoritybReasoning:bScaliabstatedbthatbArticlebIIIbnotbonlybgivesbthebfederalbjudiciarybthebpow
erbtobrulebonbcases,bbutbtobdecidebthem,bsubjectbonlybtobreviewbbybsuperiorbcourtsbinbthebArticlebII
Ibhierarchy.bÒWhenbretroactiveblegislationbrequiresbitsbownbapplicationbinbabcasebalreadybfinallyb
adjudicated,bitbdoesbnobmorebandbnoblessbthanb`reversebabdeterminationboncebmade,binbabparticula
rbcase.'ÓbSuchbpowerbisbclearlybcontrarybtobwhatbthebframersbcontemplatedbinbthebseparationbofbp
owers.bItbdidbnotbmatterbthatbthebstatutebwasbwithbreferencebtobabgeneralbclassbofbcases,bandbnotbos
tensiblybtobabparticularbcase,bifbitbgavebthebCongressbthebpowerbtobreinstatebabcase,bitbnecessarilybi
nterferedbwithbtheboutcomebofbabparticularbcase.
1.bMichiganbv.bLongb(1983);bpg.b56,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bLongbwasbarrested,bandballegedbthatbhisbsearchbandbseizurebrightsbhadbbeenbviolated.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebMichiganbStatebSupremebCourtbruledbthatbthebpolicebsearchbdidbviola
tedbthebFourthbAmendmentbandbthebMichiganbConstitution'sbownbsearchbandbseizureblaws.
4.bIssue:bWhetherbthebSupremebCourtbhasbjurisdictionbtobreviewbstatebcourtbjudgmentsbwhichbco
ncernbfederalbissues,bandbwhichbarebnotbclearlybbasedbonbanbadequatebandbindependentbstateblawb
grounds.
5.bHolding:bYes.bIfbthebstatebcourtbdecisionbdoesbnot]bindicatebclearlybandbexpresslybbybmeansbofb
abÒplainbstatementÓbthatbitbisbalternativelybbasedbonbbonabfidebseparate,badequate,bandbindepend
entbgroundsbthebSupremebCourtbhasbappellatebjurisdictionbtobreviewbthebstatebcourtbruling.
6.bMajoritybReasoning:bO'ConnorbstatedbthatbthebCourtbmustbassumebthatbtherebarebnobadequatebg
roundsbwhenbitbisbnotbclearbfrombthebopinionbthatbtherebwere,bandbthebopinionbappearsbtobrestbpri
marilybonbfederalblaw.bItbwasbnecessaryboutbofbrespectbforbthebindependencebofbstatebcourtsbthatbt
hebpresumptionbofbadequatebstatebgroundsbgobagainstbthebstatesbsobasbtobpromotebclarity,bthusbavo
idingbexcessivebremandsbandbadvisorybopinions.bThisbpromotesbuniformitybinbthebstatesbinterpret
ationbofbfederalblaw.
7.bDissentbReasoning:bStevensbstatedbthatbitbwouldbbebbetterbtobgivebthebpresumptionbforbadequat
ebstatebgroundsbtobthebstate,bbecausebofbhistoricalbconcernsbofbjudicialbrestraint.bThebSupremebCo
urtbshouldbnotbbebinvolvedbunlessbtherebisbabreasonbtobvindicatebthebfederalbrightsbofbabparty.bAbpr
esumptionbagainstbindependentbstatebgroundsbwouldbhavebthebCourtbexpoundingbtheirbunderstan
dingbofbConstitutionalblawbtobtheblegalbcommunitybinsteadbofbprimarilybsittingbtobresolvebdispute
s.
1.bMcCullochbv.bMaryland,b(1819);bpg.b67,bbriefedb9/10/95
2.bFacts:bInb1816,bCongressbcharteredbthebSecondbBankbofbthebUnitedbStates,bwhichbbecamebacti
vebinbMaryland.bInb1818,bthebMarylandblegislaturebpassedbanbActbtobtaxbanybbankbnotbcharteredbb
ybthebLegislaturebofbMaryland,bthusbtaxingbthebU.S.bBank.bTheblawbprovidedbforbprivatebremedie
sbagainstbthebbankboperators,bofbwhich,bonebwasbMcCulloch.
3.bProceduralbPosture:bThebtrialbcourtbenteredbjudgmentbonbthebbasisbofbanbagreedbstatementbofbfa
ctsb(thatbthebU.S.bBankbwasbnotbcharteredbbybthebMarylandblegislature),bandbthebMarylandbCourtb
ofbAppealbaffirmed.bAnbappealbwasbtakenbbybwritbofberrorbtobthebSupremebCourt.
