Supreme Court of the United States · 1810 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsAppellate JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationArticle IIIappellate jurisdictionexceptions and regulationsaffirmative statutory grantimplied negative
Facts
Congress created a district court for the Territory of Orleans and provided that its judge would have and exercise the same jurisdiction and powers as the judge of the Kentucky district. The United States argued that this language did not authorize Supreme Court review of Orleans judgments, or at least not in a case like this one. The plaintiffs argued that Supreme Court appellate review either arose from the Constitution or was implied by the statute creating the Orleans court together with the Judiciary Act. The Court therefore first addressed whether it had jurisdiction to review the Orleans court's judgment by writ of error.
Issue
Whether the Supreme Court had appellate jurisdiction by writ of error to review a judgment of the territorial court of Orleans. More broadly, whether Congress's affirmative statutory description of appellate jurisdiction implies exclusion of appellate review in cases not described.
Rule
Although the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is given by the Constitution, Congress may limit and regulate that jurisdiction under the Exceptions and Regulations Clause. When Congress affirmatively describes the cases in which appellate review lies, that affirmative description is understood to imply a negative against review in cases not included, but such an implied exception should be recognized only when the legislature's manifest intent appears and not to defeat legislative intent.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Congress creates the Federal Commerce Court for the Territory of Pacifica and states that its single judge shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction and powers as the judge of the federal district court in Tennessee. In a customs dispute decided there, Nora Velez seeks Supreme Court review by writ of error, but the governing statute creating the Pacifica court says nothing expressly about Supreme Court review.
Should the Supreme Court dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction?
Explanation. The majority reasoned that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction, while Congress may regulate and limit it by exceptions. An affirmative statutory description may imply a negative, but only where legislative intent to withhold review clearly appears. Where Congress seems to place a newly created court on the same footing as another court whose judgments are reviewable, the Court should not imply an exception that would defeat that intent. (Derived from Durousseau v. United States (1810).)