{ "id": "R44967", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R44967", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44967", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-02-18T04:03:41.654104", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R44967_10_2024-01-19", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44967/10", "sha1": "919c7ca4ae9afa0f91d837ae937cfaf8d659811e", "filename": "files/2024-01-19_R44967_919c7ca4ae9afa0f91d837ae937cfaf8d659811e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2024-01-19_R44967_919c7ca4ae9afa0f91d837ae937cfaf8d659811e.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Congress\u2019s Power over Court Decisions: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein", "date": "2024-01-19" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 583721, "date": "2018-08-09", "retrieved": "2018-08-13T13:05:47.074116", "title": "Congress\u2019s Power over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein", "summary": "Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Notably, it empowers federal courts to hear \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies.\u201d The Constitution further creates a federal judiciary with significant independence, providing federal judges with life tenure and prohibiting diminutions of judges\u2019 salaries. But the Framers also granted Congress the power to regulate the federal courts in numerous ways. For instance, Article III authorizes Congress to determine what classes of \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies\u201d inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. Additionally, Article III\u2019s Exceptions Clause grants Congress the power to make \u201cexceptions\u201d and \u201cregulations\u201d to the Supreme Court\u2019s appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by \u201cstripping\u201d federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases. Congress has gone so far as to eliminate a court\u2019s jurisdiction to review a particular case in the midst of litigation. More generally, Congress may influence judicial resolutions by amending the substantive law underlying particular litigation of interest to the legislature.\nCongress has, at times, used these powers to influence particular judicial outcomes, raising concerns about whether Congress is acting in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers by interfering with the judiciary\u2019s power to resolve cases and controversies independently. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution, by granting the judicial branch the power to decide \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies,\u201d in turn grants the judiciary the power to \u201csay what the law is.\u201d Sometimes competing with this principle is the understanding that the Constitution empowers a democratically elected branch\u2014Congress\u2014to decide what classes of cases the federal courts may review, as well as to enact legislation that courts may need to interpret. \nThis report highlights a series of Supreme Court rulings that have examined separation-of-powers-based limitations on the Exceptions Clause, congressional jurisdiction stripping, and the ability of Congress to amend laws with the purpose of directly impacting litigation. The Court\u2019s jurisprudence largely begins with the Reconstruction-era case, United States v. Klein, and leads to Patchak v. Zinke, from the October 2017 term.\nIn Klein, the Supreme Court generally held that Congress may not, by limiting appellate jurisdiction, dictate a \u201crule of decision\u201d that undermines the independence of the judiciary. But in the 2016 opinion Bank Markazi v. Peterson, the Court appeared to minimize Klein\u2019s significance, noting that while Congress cannot invade the judicial role by dictating how courts rule in a particular case, Congress has significant authority to amend the substantive law in a manner that may alter the outcome of pending litigation, even if the amendment specifically mentions a particular case. The Patchak litigation highlighted the potential for tension between the judiciary\u2019s and legislature\u2019s powers when Congress removes a class of cases from federal jurisdiction in a way that impacts pending litigation. The Supreme Court ultimately issued a fractured 4-2-3 opinion, adding little clarity to this complex area of the law. Although nine Justices agreed that Congress cannot dictate the outcome of a particular case, for instance, by enacting a law that says, \u201cIn Smith v. Jones, Smith wins,\u201d a majority of Justices could not agree on when a facially neutral law that functionally ends pending litigation in the favor of one party violates Article III.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44967", "sha1": "940e9e3e3c560fb84b9c399443b1dfee80a44733", "filename": "files/20180809_R44967_940e9e3e3c560fb84b9c399443b1dfee80a44733.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44967", "sha1": "6440bc7d4ffff9dd29e82307812de57d845031ec", "filename": "files/20180809_R44967_6440bc7d4ffff9dd29e82307812de57d845031ec.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4755, "name": "Judicial Branch" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4910, "name": "Legislative Branch" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 573393, "date": "2017-09-26", "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:11:44.843643", "title": "Congress\u2019s Power Over Courts: Jurisdiction Stripping and the Rule of Klein", "summary": "Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the federal government. Notably, it empowers federal courts to hear \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies.\u201d The Constitution further creates a federal judiciary with significant independence, providing federal judges with life tenure and prohibiting diminutions of judges\u2019 salaries. But the Framers also granted Congress the power to regulate the federal courts in numerous ways. For instance, Article III authorizes Congress to determine what classes of \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies\u201d inferior courts have jurisdiction to review. Additionally, Article III\u2019s Exceptions Clause grants Congress the power to make \u201cexceptions\u201d and \u201cregulations\u201d to the Supreme Court\u2019s appellate jurisdiction. Congress sometimes exercises this power by \u201cstripping\u201d federal courts of jurisdiction to hear a class of cases. Congress has gone so far as to eliminate a court\u2019s jurisdiction to review a particular case in the midst of litigation. More generally, Congress may influence judicial resolutions by amending the substantive law underlying particular litigation of interest to the legislature.\nCongress has, at times, used these powers to influence particular judicial outcomes, raising concerns about whether Congress is acting in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers by interfering with the judiciary\u2019s power to resolve cases and controversies independently. In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court announced that the Constitution, by granting the judicial branch the power to decide \u201ccases\u201d and \u201ccontroversies,\u201d in turn grants the judiciary the power to \u201csay what the law is.\u201d Sometimes competing with this principle is the understanding that the Constitution empowers a democratically elected branch\u2014Congress\u2014to decide what classes of cases the federal courts may review, as well as to enact legislation that courts may need to interpret. \nThis report highlights a series of Supreme Court rulings that have examined separation-of-powers-based limitations on the Exceptions Clause, congressional jurisdiction stripping, and the ability of Congress to amend laws with the purpose of directly impacting litigation. The Court\u2019s jurisprudence largely begins with the Reconstruction-era case United States v. Klein, and leads to Patchak v. Zinke, which is scheduled for oral argument before the Supreme Court in November 2017.\nIn Klein, the Supreme Court generally held that Congress may not, by limiting appellate jurisdiction, dictate a \u201crule of decision\u201d that undermines the independence of the judiciary. But in the 2016 opinion Bank Markazi v. Peterson\u2014the Court\u2019s latest ruling interpreting Klein\u2014the Court appeared to minimize Klein\u2019s significance, noting that while Congress cannot invade the judicial role by dictating how courts rule in a particular case, Congress is still permitted to amend the substantive law in a manner that may alter the outcome of pending litigation. Patchak highlights the potential for tension between the judiciary\u2019s and legislature\u2019s powers when Congress removes a class of cases from federal jurisdiction in a way that impacts pending litigation. Accordingly, Patchak may require the Supreme Court to re-examine Klein and its progeny and, perhaps, clarify this complex area of the law.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44967", "sha1": "c50f2d102ffb608ccca31ae141fc315490657c01", "filename": "files/20170926_R44967_c50f2d102ffb608ccca31ae141fc315490657c01.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44967", "sha1": "3144d070678668097852c2fec349d2ead30aa780", "filename": "files/20170926_R44967_3144d070678668097852c2fec349d2ead30aa780.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4755, "name": "Judicial Branch" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4756, "name": "Separation of Powers" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4910, "name": "Legislative Branch" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }