Supreme Court of the United States · 1869 · Constitutional Law
74 U.S. 506 (1869)
Updated
Constitutional Lawappellate jurisdictionExceptions Clausejurisdiction strippinghabeas corpusrepealpending casesCongressional power
Facts
The case came to the Supreme Court as an appeal in a habeas corpus matter authorized by the Act of 1867. Before the Court decided the appeal, Congress passed the Act of March 1868, which expressly repealed the provision of the 1867 Act that had affirmed the Court's appellate jurisdiction in such habeas corpus cases. The petitioner argued that the Court's appellate jurisdiction comes from the Constitution rather than from Congress. The Court addressed only whether the repealing act deprived it of jurisdiction to proceed.
Issue
Does the Act of March 1868, which expressly repealed the 1867 statutory grant of appellate jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases, remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over this pending appeal? If so, must the Court dismiss without reaching any other question?
Rule
Although the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution, it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. When Congress expressly repeals a statutory authorization for appellate jurisdiction, the Court may not proceed in pending cases under that authorization, because without jurisdiction its only function is to announce the lack of jurisdiction and dismiss the cause.
🔒
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.
In Phoenix, Elena Torres filed a federal statutory appeal to the Supreme Court from an adverse judgment in a benefits dispute. While her appeal was pending, Congress enacted a new law expressly repealing the section that authorized Supreme Court appellate review in that category of cases, and the new law contained no saving clause for pending appeals.
How should the Supreme Court respond?
Explanation. The governing rule is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred, but it is conferred with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. When Congress expressly repeals the statutory authorization for a particular form of appellate review, the Court may not proceed in a pending case under that authorization. Without jurisdiction, the Court's only function is to announce the lack of jurisdiction and dismiss.