Ex parte McCardle facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Ex parte McCardle |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 2 – 4, 9, 1868 Decided April 12, 1869 |
|
| Full case name | Ex parte McCardle |
| Citations | 74 U.S. 506 (more)
7 Wall. 506; 19 L. Ed. 264; 1868 U.S. LEXIS 1028
|
| Prior history | 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 opinions | |
| Majority | Chase, joined by unanimous |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. art. III | |
Ex parte McCardle was an important case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1869. It explored how much power the Supreme Court has to review decisions made by lower courts. The case specifically looked at whether the U.S. Congress could limit the Supreme Court's ability to hear certain types of cases. This decision helped define the balance of power between the legislative branch (Congress) and the judicial branch (the courts).
Contents
Understanding Ex parte McCardle
This case is a key part of American legal history. It shows how the different parts of the U.S. government work together. It also shows how the U.S. Constitution sets rules for each branch.
The Story Behind the Case
The story of Ex parte McCardle begins right after the American Civil War. This period was known as Reconstruction. During this time, the United States was trying to rebuild. New laws were passed by Congress to help with this process.
What Happened to William McCardle?
A newspaper publisher named William McCardle wrote articles that strongly criticized the new Reconstruction laws. Because of these articles, a military commander arrested him. McCardle was put in jail under a law called the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867.
McCardle believed his arrest was unfair. He used a legal tool called habeas corpus. This is a special request to a court to challenge why someone is being held in jail. He asked the Circuit Court in Mississippi to release him. However, the judge decided that the military's actions were legal. McCardle was sent back to jail.
McCardle then decided to appeal his case. He took it to the Supreme Court. He did this under a law called the Habeas Corpus Act of 1867. This law gave the Supreme Court the power to review cases where a habeas corpus request was denied.
The Big Questions for the Court
The Supreme Court heard arguments in McCardle's case. But before they could announce their decision, something unusual happened. Congress passed a new law. This new law took away the Supreme Court's power to hear McCardle's specific type of appeal. This action by Congress raised two main questions for the Supreme Court:
- Did the Supreme Court still have the power, or jurisdiction, to hear McCardle's case?
- If they did, was McCardle's imprisonment against his Fifth Amendment rights? These rights include the right to Due Process, meaning fair treatment under the law.
The Supreme Court's Decision
The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision. This means all the judges agreed. Chief Justice Chase wrote the Court's opinion. The Court decided that Congress had the power to take away its jurisdiction. This meant the Supreme Court could no longer hear McCardle's case.
Why the Court Decided That Way
The Court based its decision on Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. This part of the Constitution gives Congress the power to make "exceptions" to the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review decisions made by lower courts.
The Court explained that when Congress clearly states what powers the courts have, it also implies what powers they do not have. By passing the new law, Congress clearly used its constitutional power. It removed the Supreme Court's ability to hear appeals like McCardle's.
Because the Court decided it no longer had the power to hear the case, it could not answer the second question. It did not decide if McCardle's imprisonment was against his rights. Since Congress took away the Court's power to hear the case, McCardle had no other way to challenge his imprisonment in federal court.
