Ex Parte McCardle
| Ex parte McCardle | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 2 – 4, 9, 1868 Decided April 12, 1869 |
|
| Full case name | Ex parte McCardle |
| Citations | 74 U.S. 506 (more) |
| Prior history | Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Holding | |
| Congress has the authority to withdraw appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court at any time. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Chase, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. III | |
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869), is a United States Supreme Court decision that examines the extent of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to review decisions of lower courts under federal statutory law.
During the Civil War Reconstruction, William McCardle, a newspaper publisher printed some "incendiary" articles which advocated opposition to the Reconstruction laws enacted by the Republican Congress. He was jailed by a military commander under the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867, a law passed by the United States Congress. Mr. McCardle invoked habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. The judge sent him back into custody, finding the military actions legal under Congress's law. He appealed to the Supreme Court under the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court to review denial of habeas petitions. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress suspended the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case, exercising the powers granted to Congress under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution.
Two issues were raised by this case: Whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and if so, whether McCardle's imprisonment violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights.
Chief Justice Chase, writing for a unanimous court, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal was the exceptions clause of Article III Section 2. But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Since the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second question was not answered. Since Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in federal court.
...
Wikipedia