Jurisdiction Stripping

Article III gives the Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make, and lets Congress create, and therefore define the jurisdiction of, the lower federal courts. Congress has used this power to shape the courts' workload, and at times to keep specific issues away from judges. In Ex parte McCardle, decided April 12, 1869, the Supreme Court dismissed a Reconstruction-era challenge after Congress repealed the law giving it jurisdiction while the case was pending, accepting Congress's power to make exceptions.

The power has limits. In United States v. Klein in 1872 the Court held that Congress cannot use jurisdictional rules to dictate the outcome of a pending case, and in Boumediene v. Bush in 2008 it struck down a provision of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that removed habeas corpus jurisdiction over Guantanamo detainees, because Congress had not provided an adequate substitute. In Patchak v. Zinke in 2018, however, a plurality upheld a law directing courts to dismiss suits over a particular piece of land.

Members of Congress have often proposed stripping jurisdiction in response to controversial rulings, including decisions on internal security in the 1950s, school prayer and busing in the 1970s and 1980s, and the Pledge of Allegiance in 2004, when the House passed a bill that the Senate did not take up. Supporters say the power is a legitimate democratic check on the courts written into the Constitution. Critics say broad use would let Congress evade constitutional rights by closing the courthouse door. Scholars have debated since the 1950s how far the power reaches.