The Judiciary
Jurisdiction
Ex. parte McCardle (1869)
74 U.S. 506 (1869)
Vote: 8-0
Decision: Dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Majority: Chase, joined by Nelson, Grier, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, and Field
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The first question necessarily is that of jurisdiction; for, if the act of March, 1868, takes away the jurisdiction defined by the act of February, 1867, it is useless, if not improper, to enter into any discussion of other questions.
It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel for the petitioner, that the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not derived from acts of Congress. It is, strictly speaking, conferred by the Constitution. But it is conferred “with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make.” …
[A]cts of Congress, providing for the exercise of jurisdiction, should come to be spoken of as acts granting jurisdiction, and not as acts making exceptions to the constitutional grant of it.
The exception to appellate jurisdiction in this case however is not an interference from the affirmation of other appellate jurisdiction. It is made in terms. The provision of the act of 1867 affirming the appellate jurisdiction of this court in cases of habeas corpus is expressly repealed. It is hardly possible to imagine a plainer instance of positive exception.
We are not at liberty to inquire into the motives of the legislature. We can only examine into its power under the Constitution; and the power to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of this court is given by express words.
What, then, is the effect of the repealing act upon the case before us? We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause …
It is quite clear, therefore, that this court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment in this case, for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining ungranted jurisdiction than in exercising firmly that which the Constitution and the laws confer.
Counsel seem to have supposed, if effect be given to the repealing act in question, that the whole appellate power of the court, in cases of habeas corpus, is denied. But this is an error. The act of 1868 does not except from that jurisdiction any cases but appeals from Circuit Courts under the act of 1867. It does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised.
The appeal of the petitioner in this case must be
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.
Patchak v. Zinke (2018)
583 U.S. ___ (2018)
Vote: 6-3
Decision: Affirmed
Plurality: Thomas, joined by Breyer, Alito, Kagan
Concurrence: Breyer
Concurrence: Ginsburg (in judgment), joined by Sotomayor
Concurrence: Sotomayor (in judgment)
Dissent: Roberts, joined by Kennedy Gorsuch
JUSTICE THOMAS anno