| Ex parte McCardle | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 2 – 4, 9, 1868 Decided April 12, 1869 | |
| Full case name | Ex parte McCardle |
| Citations | 74U.S.506 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 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 opinion | |
| Majority | Chase, joined byunanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. III | |
Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869), was aUnited States Supreme Court decision in which the court held that Congress has the authority towithdraw the Supreme Court's appellatejurisdiction to reviewdecisions of lower courts at any time.[1] As such, the entirety of the court's appellate jurisdiction is determined byfederal law.[2]
During theReconstruction era, newspaper publisherWilliam McCardle printed some "incendiary" articles advocating opposition to the Reconstruction laws enacted by Congress. He was jailed by a military commander under theMilitary Reconstruction Act of 1867. McCardle invokedhabeas corpus in theCircuit Court of the Southern District of Mississippi. The judge sent him back into custody, finding the military actions legal under Congress' law. He appealed to the Supreme Court under theHabeas Corpus Act of 1867, which granted appellate jurisdiction to review denial of habeas corpus petitions. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress suspended the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the case, exercising itsjurisdiction stripping powers granted underArticle III, section 2, clause 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 hisFifth Amendmentdue process rights. The first question would have to be answered in the affirmative to reach the second at all.
.jpg)
Chief Justice Chase, writing for a unanimous court, validated congressional withdrawal of the Court's jurisdiction. The basis for this repeal wasArticle III, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution.[3] The Supreme Court based its rationale in the 1810 Supreme Court caseDurousseau v. United States, which had held that Congress's affirmative description of certain judicial powers implied a negation of all other powers.[4] Creating legislation to remove the court's jurisdiction was therefore legitimate under thejurisdiction stripping powers granted by the Constitution. By repealing the act that granted the Supreme Court authority to hear the case, Congress made a clear statement that they were using their Constitutional authority to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, so the court had no choice but to dismiss the case.
Chase, however, also pointedly reminded readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Since the court had held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second question could not be answered and McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in federal court.
Works related toEx parte McCardle at Wikisource