Stripping the SC of jurisdiction

Case: Ex Parte McCardle [74 US 506] p. 42

Facts: In 1867 Congress empowered the federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus, and one of its
provisions authorized the SC to hear appeals in cases where circuit courts denied applications for writ
of habeas corpus. After the Act of 1867 was passed, McCardle, a racist editor of a newspaper, was
imprisoned by Mississippi military govt, under the Reconstruction Act, for publishing material that
tended to "incite violence and impede Reconstruction." McCardle sought habeas corpus, alleging
"unlawful restraint by military force." His petition was denied by the circuit court and he appealed to
the SC under the 1867 Act. The SC hinted that it wanted to hold military Reconstruction
unconstitutional, and Congress, fearing this result, passed a repealing act before the decision in
McCardle's case. The act repealed the provision granting SC power to hear appeals in cases where
circuit courts denied applications for writ of habeas corpus, thereby stripping the SC from its power to
hear McCardle's case.

Issue: Did the SC has jurisdiction to hear the case? - No.

Reasoning:
○ Art. III, Sec. 2 of Constitution: " In all the other cases before mentioned, 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."
 So all fed question cases where SC does not have original jurisdiction, the SC
has appellate jurisdiction.
 So this is a fed question, b/c he says the act under which he's being held is
unconstitutional.
 SC has original jurisdiction for cases where state is a party involving foreign
officials
 So SC does not have jurisdiction (w/o the provision in the 1867 act) to decide
this case
• Chief Justice Chase stated that although the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is
derived from the Constitution, Art III says that the SC's jurisdiction is limited "under
such regulations as the Congress shall make." Since Congress first granted, but now
stripped the SC's jurisdiction to hear this appeal, the SC no longer has jurisdiction.
• The SC dismissed the case because they lacked jurisdiction.
• However, the opinion also noted that the repealing act only took away jurisdiction
from the SC which had previously been granted by the specific provision of the 1867
Act in question, but not any other jurisdiction the SC previously had.
 So, only the appeal lacked jurisdiction.