Ex parte McCardle

SCOTUSCase
Litigants=Ex parte McCardle
ArgueDateA=March 2
ArgueDateB=4, 9
ArgueYear=1869
DecideDate=April 12
DecideYear=1869
FullName=Ex parte McCardle
USVol=74
USPage=506
Citation=74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506; 19 L. Ed. 264; 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1028
Prior=Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Subsequent=
Holding=Congress has the authority to withdraw appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court at any time.
SCOTUS=1867-1870
Majority=Chase
JoinMajority="unanimous"
LawsApplied=U.S. Const. art. III

"Ex parte McCardle", 74 U.S. 506 (1868) [ussc|74|506|Full text of the decision courtesy of Findlaw.com] , 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.

Case history

During the Civil War Reconstruction, William McCardle, a newspaper publisher and professional soldier in the Confederate Army reaching the rank of sergeant, published 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 authorized federal courts for the first time to issue writs of "habeas corpus" whenever persons held in "state" custody challenged it on federal grounds. After the case was argued but before an opinion was delivered, Congress suspended the Court's jurisdiction over the case, under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution.

Issues

Two issues were raised by this case: did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to hear the case, and if so, did McCardle's imprisonment violate his rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Holdings

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. ["... the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." ] But Chase pointedly reminded his readers that the 1868 statute repealing jurisdiction "does not affect the jurisdiction which was previously exercised." Because the Court held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, the second question was not answered. Because Congress withdrew jurisdiction to hear the case, McCardle had no legal recourse to challenge his imprisonment in federal court.

Rationale

"Durousseau v. United States", 10 U.S. 307 (1810) held that Congress's affirmative description of certain judicial powers implied a negation of all other powers. Creating such legislation was legitimate under the authority granted them by the United States Constitution.

By repealing the act which granted the Supreme Court authority to hear the case, Congress made a clear statement that they were using this Constitutional authority to remove the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The court has no choice but to dismiss the case.

Recent Analysis

Ex parte McCardle has become revived recently because Congress repealed the statute that was being used by the detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to petition for "habeas corpus". The government has argued that the Guantanamo cases should be dismissed, just as in "Ex parte McCardle". Justice Antonin Scalia took this position in "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld", for example.

However, some scholars have argued Fact|date=September 2007that "McCardle" is distinguishable because only one "path" to the Supreme Court was repealed by Congress in "McCardle". In fact, the constitutionality of the Military Reconstruction Act (the issue McCardle was challenging) was eventually decided on "habeas" petitions that took a different "path" to the Supreme Court a few years after "McCardle". Therefore, not all "paths" were closed. Based on this, "Ex parte McCardle" may only mean that Congress can regulate which method is used to petition for habeas as long as some "path" stays open. This distinction could be important since Congress has tried to foreclose all "habeas" petitions by Guantanamo detainees in response to "Hamdan v. Rumsfeld" in the "Military Commissions Act of 2006".

ee also

*List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 74

Notes