Ex Parte McCardle
74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869)
Constitutional Topic Areas:
Article III §2 Clause 2 ‘Expansion Clause’, 5th Amendment Due Process Clause, 1st Amendment, Separation of Powers, Congressional Powers, Habeas Corpus, Appellate Jurisdiction, Original Jurisdiction
Case Facts:
William McCardle was the editor for a prominent news paper in Mississippi and was arrested by the military in 1867 for writing articles criticizing the ongoing post civil war reconstruction in the South, then under martial law imposed by the Reconstruction Acts. McCardle believed his imprisonment was unconstitutional, as he was a civilian, and requested a writ of habeas corpus from the federal courts. The court found the military’s actions to be legal and re-imprisoned McCardle. McCardle then appealed to the Supreme Court under it’s newly acquired appellate jurisdiction for this type of case, gained in 1867 under the Reconstruction Acts. After the Supreme Court heard arguments but before the per curiam opinion could be delivered, Congress repealed the part of the law giving the Court this appellate jurisdiction, (President Johnson vetoed and Congress overrode) effectively rescinding the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction in cases stemming from the Reconstruction Acts, effectively eliminating McCardle’s pursuit of a writ of habeas corpus.
Questions:
1. Can Congress take away jurisdiction after it has already been granted?
2. Does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to hear McCardle’s Case?
3. If so, were McCardle’s 5th Amendment Due Process rights violated?
Holding:
1. Yes
2. No
3. N/A
Legal Reasoning: Chief Justice S.P. Chase (Unanimous)
1. The Constitution directly provides appellate jurisdiction authority to the Supreme Court, which however is constrained by “…such Exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make”. The new law passed by Congress effectively nullifies the previous law, thereby repealing the court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate habeas corpus cases pertaining to the reconstruction acts
2. McCardle’s case must be dismissed, as the court does not now possess adequate jurisdiction to adjudicate
Significance:
Ex Parte McCardle came to be an important historical precedent on how the Supreme Court interprets the Exceptions Clause in Article III §II. This case continued to be used as precedent, where in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Justice Scalia’s dissent cited Ex Parte McCardle, stating the Supreme Court is without power to hear such petitions if Congress uses its authority to limit the Court’s jurisdiction
Reflection:
This case is an example of the checks and balances the Framers thought to be necessary to keep powers checked between the three branches of the federal government. It is interesting the Supreme Court ruled just one year later that they actually possessed the jurisdiction to review any habeas corpus decision by lower federal courts under the Judiciary Act of 1789 during Ex Parte Yerger in 1869. Overall, McCardle broadened the power of the legislative branch while constraining the power of the judicial branch
Supreme Court Case Briefs 