Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Affirmative Power to Strip State Courts of Jurisdiction
View through CrossRef
The very substantial literature on the scope of congressional power to strip courts of jurisdiction contains a gap: it does not discuss the source of the affirmative power of Congress to strip state courts of their jurisdiction. Laws granting exclusive federal court jurisdiction over some category of cases are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts, but what power does Congress exercise when it strips both state and federal courts of jurisdiction? The answer depends on the nature of the case. In stripping all courts of the power to hear federal statutory claims and challenges to federal statutes, Congress exercises whatever affirmative power authorizes the substantive statute. However, Congress lacks affirmative power to strip all courts of the power to hear constitutional challenges to state laws. That conclusion is important in its own right but also complements views—such as Henry Hart’s contention that the Supreme Court must have such jurisdiction as necessary to play its “essential role” in our constitutional system—about the scope and limits of congressional power under the Exceptions Clause of Article III. The limit on affirmative congressional power to strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to state laws ensures that there will be cases over which the Supreme Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction in order to play its essential role.
Title: Affirmative Power to Strip State Courts of Jurisdiction
Description:
The very substantial literature on the scope of congressional power to strip courts of jurisdiction contains a gap: it does not discuss the source of the affirmative power of Congress to strip state courts of their jurisdiction.
Laws granting exclusive federal court jurisdiction over some category of cases are necessary and proper to the exercise of the power to ordain and establish lower federal courts, but what power does Congress exercise when it strips both state and federal courts of jurisdiction? The answer depends on the nature of the case.
In stripping all courts of the power to hear federal statutory claims and challenges to federal statutes, Congress exercises whatever affirmative power authorizes the substantive statute.
However, Congress lacks affirmative power to strip all courts of the power to hear constitutional challenges to state laws.
That conclusion is important in its own right but also complements views—such as Henry Hart’s contention that the Supreme Court must have such jurisdiction as necessary to play its “essential role” in our constitutional system—about the scope and limits of congressional power under the Exceptions Clause of Article III.
The limit on affirmative congressional power to strip state courts of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to state laws ensures that there will be cases over which the Supreme Court can exercise its appellate jurisdiction in order to play its essential role.
Related Results
Various Issues of the International Choice of Court Agreement under the Amended Act on Private International Law of 2022
Various Issues of the International Choice of Court Agreement under the Amended Act on Private International Law of 2022
The Act on Private International Law (APIL), which came into effect in July 2001, provided for general principles on international jurisdiction in its Article 2, and for rules of i...
Features of the jurisdiction of economic courts
Features of the jurisdiction of economic courts
The article considers the problem of determining the jurisdiction of commercial courts. It is proved that jurisdiction should be considered depending on the theoretical model of sp...
Regina (Keyu) and Others v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another
Regina (Keyu) and Others v. Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Another
Relationship of international law and municipal law — Treaties — Effect in municipal law — European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Article 2 of Convention — Human Rights Act 19...
Autonomy on Trial
Autonomy on Trial
Photo by CHUTTERSNAP on Unsplash
Abstract
This paper critically examines how US bioethics and health law conceptualize patient autonomy, contrasting the rights-based, individualist...
Long-term edge effect of strip roads in pine stands (Pinus sylvestris L.)
Long-term edge effect of strip roads in pine stands (Pinus sylvestris L.)
Crowns of trees neighboring a strip road are exposed to greater amounts of sunlight, which may result in the so-called edge effect, leading to enhanced tree growth. The aim of this...
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: ONLY A SHIELD? OR ALSO A SWORD? Harmse v City of Cape Town (2003) 24 ILJ 1130 and Dudley v City of Cape Town (2004) 25 ILJ 305 (LC)
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: ONLY A SHIELD? OR ALSO A SWORD? Harmse v City of Cape Town (2003) 24 ILJ 1130 and Dudley v City of Cape Town (2004) 25 ILJ 305 (LC)
The Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 (hereinafter “the EEA”) which gives more detailed content to the right of equality enshrined in section 9 of the Constitution of South Africa, ...
VALUE (X 2) + FINE = DAMAGES? NOTES ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BY THE COURTS OF CHIEFS (SENIOR TRADITIONAL LEADERS) AND HEADMEN
VALUE (X 2) + FINE = DAMAGES? NOTES ON THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BY THE COURTS OF CHIEFS (SENIOR TRADITIONAL LEADERS) AND HEADMEN
The main fora for the adjudication of customary-law cases on a daily basis are the courts of chiefs (senior traditional leaders) and headmen (the so-called traditional courts) whic...
Oleynikov v. Russia
Oleynikov v. Russia
Human rights — State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Civil proceedings against foreign State for repayment of debt arising under loan agreement — Organ of State — Embassy of f...

